John 6:44-45
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.Calvinists assert that the same group is discussed throughout. That group is the elect. The group is the group that comes, that is drawn, that will be raised up, that is taught of God, and that hears and learns. Some Arminians disagree.
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. ἔστι γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς με.
For example, some Arminians try to say that one group is "taught" but only a sub-group of that "hears" and "learns." This position is not necessarily the position of all Arminians. When Arminians argue this, however, there a clear grammatical answer.
The expression "taught of God" is expressed using a predicate adjective that we translate "taught" (διδακτοὶ) with the genitive form of God (Θεοῦ). The adjective διδακτοὶ, when referring to people, conveys that the people have received the educational effect of the teaching, much like "engraved" means that something has received the effect of the engraving, or "shattered" means that something has received the effect of the shattering.
Various forms of the word διδακτός are found in Scripture. When that word refers to things, it refers to the objects of instruction (the lessons) and when it refers to people it refers to the subjects of instruction (the students).
In the latter sense it seems to be more rarely used. In addition to this one instance in the New Testament, we find it similarly in the Greek translation of Isaiah 54:13 (διδακτοὺς θεοῦ) but also in a related form in 1 Maccabees:
1 Maccabees 4:7 (Apocrypha) And they saw the camp of the heathen, that it was strong and well harnessed, and compassed round about with horsemen; and these were expert of war.
That expression "Expert of war" is διδακτοὶ πολέμου. In the context of 1 Maccabees 4:7, it should be clear that the focus of the word is on the result in the heathen. The point isn't that they all went to boot camp, but rather that they all were expert (as the KJV puts it). The use of "of war" πολέμου may specifically suggest that these were veterans. Their expertise was forged in the fires of armed conflict.
Another instance and even more similar reference can be found in the ancient pseudepigraphic literature called the "Psalms of Solomon":
Psalms of Solomon 17:32 (Pseudepigrapha) And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all will be holy, and their king will be the Lord Messiah. (translation by Robert B. Wright)[FN1]
Again it should be clear from the immediate context that the idea is not simply that the king was at a school, but that he was actually educated. There is no question about whether he heard and learned, but rather it is given as a result. He did not just sit under teaching, he is taught.
Finally, let's consider the context of the usage in Isaiah 54:13. Brenton's translation of the Septuagint provides the following context:
Isaiah 54:11-17
11 Afflicted and outcast thou has not been comforted: behold, I will prepare carbuncle for thy stones, and sapphire for thy foundations; 12 and I will make thy buttresses jasper, and thy gates crystal, and thy border precious stones. 13 And I will cause all thy sons to be taught of God, and thy children to be in great peace. 14 And thou shalt be built in righteousness: abstain from injustice, and thou shalt not fear; and trembling shall not come nigh thee. 15 Behold, strangers shall come to thee by me, and shall sojourn with thee, and shall run to thee for refuge. 16 Behold, I have created thee, not as the coppersmith blowing coals, and bringing out a vessel fit for work; but I have created thee, not for ruin, that I should destroy thee. 17 I will not suffer any weapon formed against thee to prosper; and every voice that shall rise up against tee for judgment, thou shalt vanquish them all; and thine adversaries shall be condemned thereby. There is an inheritance to them that serve the Lord, and ye shall be righteous before me, saith the Lord.Notice that the discussion in Isaiah 54:11-17 with respect to the people of God is essentially monergistic. The point in the passage are the good things that God is going to do to his people. The KJV translation of the Hebrew text provides the same context:
Isaiah 54:11-17
11 O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. 12 And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. 13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. 14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. 15 Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. 16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. 17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.Notice that God is the one making the foundations from sapphires, the windows out of agates, the gates out of carbuncles (red stones), and their borders from other precious stones. The point is not just that the children will have access to a good education, but rather that they will get the education - they will be taught. We can tell this because it is nestled between the comments about building and the comment that these God-taught children will have great peace. God will establish them and give them freedom from oppression. The only human actions are the actions of their enemies, actions that God will render fruitless.
Applying this understanding of the infrequently used word διδακτός to John 6:44-45, we see that it is mistaken to act as though "taught of God" is a broad category of which "hear and learn" are subsets. It is wrong to try to suggest that there are some people who are taught of God but who do not hear and learn.
Instead, the correct way to understand "taught" as being in parallel to "heard and learn." They are two ways of talking about the same group. Those who are God-instructed are the same ones who hear and learn. Everyone who is taught by God (i.e. who hears and learns) comes to God (vs. 45), and only those come (vs. 44). This is similar to the discussion later in the chapter in which Jesus explains that everyone who eats of him will have eternal life (vs. 54) and only those (vs. 53).
This helps us to understand that Jesus' discussion is about the elect specifically. That is to say, Jesus is explaining that the elect and only the elect come to the Father because the elect and only the elect are drawn of the Father, that is they are taught of God. Consequently the elect and only the elect ultimately believe savingly on the Lord Jesus Christ.
This fits within the immediate context. Jesus is responding to their disbelief about his claim to have come down from heaven. Jesus is explaining the reason for their disbelief. The point of Jesus' response is that the Father hasn't drawn them, he hasn't taught them. They haven't heard and learned from him. This fits quite well within a Calvinistic soteriology.
It doesn't fit well within a view of Universal Prevenient Grace (UPG) and Libertarian Free Will (LFW). In such a view everyone absolutely (each and every person who has or will ever live) is given sufficient grace to believe. Then they exercise their free will either to believe or not believe. If that were the case, Jesus' words wouldn't make much sense. The reason wouldn't be that God hasn't drawn the people, or that they haven't been taught of God. Perhaps one could try to seize on the terms "heard" and "learned" (since in some cases those terms can have more proactive senses - though there is no reason to impose such a meaning here). Nevertheless, the rest of Jesus' explanation for why the people shouldn't murmur would not make sense.
Thus, while the passage may not specifically use words like "election" or "predestination" the passage is a very Calvinistic passage. It helps us see that what makes the difference between faith and unbelief is not human free will, but rather is the drawing and power of God.
- TurretinFan
FN1: Wright's is probably the leading translation of the text. However, there are a number of other translations available, which I've collected below. There is some question about when the text was originally written (the consensus seems to place it in the late intertestamental period). The original language of the text may have been Hebrew, but the text did not survive in Hebrew. The title of this work is found in what amounts to the table of contents of Codex Alexandrinus, although the text of the work is missing from the existing copy of the codex. Readers of this blog will be pleased to note, incidentally, that Athanasius' letter to Marcellinus (which we discussed earlier) was included as a preface to the books of Psalms in that codex.
Here are some alternative English translations of the verse in question:
NETS: And he shall be a righteous king, taught by God, over them, and there shall be no injustice in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy, and their king the anointed of the Lord.
G. Buchanan Gray: (32) And he (shall be) a righteous king, taught of God, over them, 36 And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, For all shall be holy and their king the anointed of the Lord.
Heerak Christian Kim translates it: And this righteous king, taught by God, shall be over them. 36 And there is not injustice in his days in the midst of them, because all are holy, and their king is the annointed of the Lord.
Dear TF,
ReplyDeleteIt does seem only one group is in view in John 6. But this doesn't rule out the idea that others (not in view here) may be drawn but don't come or hear but don't learn.
It seems you take the fact that the passage is about the result and take it to imply something about the process of getting to that result - namely that the drawing is irresistable or the giving is unconditional. But learn is an active verb. The idea seems to be that God teaches and we learn, which is synergistic not monergistic. Some people saw Christ and believed Him to be the Mesiah they waited for.
14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."
Others rejected Christ as they rejected Moses:
46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Christ bring's this idea right into the context of John 6:37-45
36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe
So even though John 6:44-45 deals with the sucessful result of the process, the process itself doesn't seem all that different than Christ describes in John 7:
17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be a bit busy for the next few days, but I'll try to provide a response to your comments above.
-TurretinFan
Thanks! Take your time.
ReplyDeleteGod be with you,
Dan
subscribing...
ReplyDeleteGodismyjudge said...
ReplyDelete"It does seem only one group is in view in John 6. But this doesn't rule out the idea that others (not in view here) may be drawn but don't come or hear but don't learn."
It doesn't rule it out as long as you don't mind making things up that aren't in the text. It doesn't rule out unicorns and leprechauns.
"It seems you take the fact that the passage is about the result and take it to imply something about the process of getting to that result - namely that the drawing is irresistable or the giving is unconditional. But learn is an active verb. The idea seems to be that God teaches and we learn, which is synergistic not monergistic. Some people saw Christ and believed Him to be the Mesiah they waited for."
You're equivocating. You know very well that "synergism" is a term of art.
Reformed monergism allows for the fact that regeneration results in a teachable spirit on the part of the regenerate.
Yes, faith is active. Learning is active.
But that hardly disproves the "passivity" of the elect in the divine act of regeneration.
In Reformed theology, regeneration is monergistic, but sanctification is cooperative.
Godismyjudge--
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"It does seem only one group is in view in John 6. But this doesn't rule out the idea that others (not in view here) may be drawn but don't come or hear but don't learn.
It seems you take the fact that the passage is about the result and take it to imply something about the process of getting to that result - namely that the drawing is irresistable or the giving is unconditional."
Do you think it is possible that the fact that "every man that has heard comes" combined with "only some men come" implies that "only some men are members of the category 'every man that has heard'"? I'm not a Calvinist but I can see why this can be persuasive, and I'm not entirely sure how to answer it at the moment.
Do you think it is possible that the fact that "every man that has heard comes" combined with "only some men come" implies that "only some men are members of the category 'every man that has heard'"? I'm not a Calvinist but I can see why this can be persuasive, and I'm not entirely sure how to answer it at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, since it's every man that hears and learns. This leaves room for the idea that some people hear but don't learn.
The other thing is that just because you have to go through a process to get to a result does not mean that everyone that starts the process gets to the result. For example, lots of folks drop out of school, but only those who start school graduate.
God be with you,
Dan
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't rule it out as long as you don't mind making things up that aren't in the text.
While I might not turn to John 6:37-45 to demonstrate resistable grace, that doesn't mean it isn't taught other places. Take Is 5:4 for example.
You're equivocating. You know very well that "synergism" is a term of art.
Reformed monergism allows for the fact that regeneration results in a teachable spirit on the part of the regenerate.
Yes, faith is active. Learning is active.
But that hardly disproves the "passivity" of the elect in the divine act of regeneration.
In Reformed theology, regeneration is monergistic, but sanctification is cooperative.
This seems contrary (slightly) to the point TF is trying to make. He seems to be taking about regeneration (or at least an effectual call) when he talks about teaching/hearing/learning, rather than sanctification. At least, that's how I take him. Your view of learning being sanctification seems odd, since the learning preceeds coming to Christ.
In a strict sense, I take regeneration to be monergistic as well. But Calvinists typically include some things into the definition of regeneration that I would take to be preveinient grace.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou write that you agree that only one group is in view, but that there may be others not in view in this passage that are drawn but do not come or hear but do not learn. I hope this accurately reflects what you are saying here, if not please correct me and explain what you do mean.
If that is your view I think that TF has already answered it when he wrote
Applying this understanding of the infrequently used word διδακτός to John 6:44-45, we see that it is mistaken to act as though "taught of God" is a broad category of which "hear and learn" are subsets. It is wrong to try to suggest that there are some people who are taught of God but who do not hear and learn.
Instead, the correct way to understand "taught" as being in parallel to "heard and learn." They are two ways of talking about the same group. Those who are God-instructed are the same ones who hear and learn. Everyone who is taught by God (i.e. who hears and learns) comes to God (vs. 45), and only those come (vs. 44). This is similar to the discussion later in the chapter in which Jesus explains that everyone who eats of him will have eternal life (vs. 54) and only those (vs. 53).
Now I suppose you would say that not everyone taught by God comes to God, but you could not make that case from these verses. At best you would have to argue from silence. Perhaps you have found a place in scripture where we are told that ones taught by God do not come?
BTW when you pointed to verse 14 are you suggesting that they were drawn by God and that they heard and learned and came to God? After all this is the same group that a little later in verse 30 ask for a sign, now if they were taught by God and heard and learned then they sure have a funny way of showing it.
Hi Mitch,
ReplyDeleteYou write that you agree that only one group is in view, but that there may be others not in view in this passage that are drawn but do not come or hear but do not learn.
That's correct.
Now I suppose you would say that not everyone taught by God comes to God, but you could not make that case from these verses.
Right.
At best you would have to argue from silence.
That's not an argument from silence.
Perhaps you have found a place in scripture where we are told that ones taught by God do not come?
Sure. I suggested Is 5:4 to Steve.
BTW when you pointed to verse 14 are you suggesting that they were drawn by God and that they heard and learned and came to God?
They heard, learned and came to Christ.
After all this is the same group that a little later in verse 30 ask for a sign, now if they were taught by God and heard and learned then they sure have a funny way of showing it.
I don't think they are the same people.
God be with you,
Dan
Godismyjudge said...
ReplyDelete"While I might not turn to John 6:37-45 to demonstrate resistable grace, that doesn't mean it isn't taught other places. Take Is 5:4 for example."
In Reformed theology, irresistible grace is a synonym for monergistic regeneration. Are you claiming that Is 5:4 denotes regeneration?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteGlad that I understood the point you were trying to make. Now when I said that you would have to argue from silence I was talking about the verses in John. I do not see how you could substantiate the point you want to make from the verses in question, and I am a bit puzzled how you think Isaiah 5:4 fits into John 6 perhaps you could give more detail.
You caught my attention with the claim that the people in verse 14 are not the same as in verse 30, who do you think they are and where do you see two distinct groups? After all, Jesus said that these were the same ones that had seen the miracle of the feeding in verse 26. We learn in verse 24 and 25 that the people were looking for Jesus and crossed the sea to find him there and asked how he had gotten there.
So while I am grateful that I understood your initial point, I fear that your follow-up has gotten me puzzled. I look forward to you shedding more light on the matter.
To anyone who may have an answer I have always wondered if all men (i.e. humanity) is drawn by God what is the point of saying that no one can come unless the Father draws him?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteIn Reformed theology, irresistible grace is a synonym for monergistic regeneration. Are you claiming that Is 5:4 denotes regeneration?
1) If irresistable grace amounts only to monergistic regeneration, then in a sense I hold to irresistible grace.
2) My understanding is that in Calvinism, irresistable grace is broader than just regeneration. Dort for example goes into more detail. So for example the effectual call is also monergistic.
3) If regeneration is defined in a broad sense, the way Calvinists sometimes do, to include God's supernatural work within man to enable a response with the goal of converting that person, then yes Is 5:4 is about regeneration.
4) If regeneration is defined in a narrow sense, the way Arminians often do, to include only the impartation of eternal life, then no, Is 5:4 is not about regeneration.
5) None of these catigories should be impossed on scripture until they are demonstrated from scripture.
6) This discussion does not really support your primary prooftext; John 6:37-45. Do you have any other arguments in favor of Calvinism from that text?
God be with you,
Dan
To anyone who may have an answer I have always wondered if all men (i.e. humanity) is drawn by God what is the point of saying that no one can come unless the Father draws him?
ReplyDelete1) It indicates man's natural state and dependence on God.
2) God does not draw all men all the time.
God be with you,
Dan
Hi Mitch,
ReplyDeleteSome (but not all) of Christ's diciples stopped following him because of this bread of life discourse. Who do you think these 'continuing diciples' were?
I think they were in the audience; so the audience was a mixed company. Christ had some open opponents some true believers and some temporary deciples in his audience.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteMitch's position might be that God drew some and not others of those in the audience. Jesus' comments explain the lack of belief of those who did not believe.
-TurretinFan
Mitch wrote: To anyone who may have an answer I have always wondered if all men (i.e. humanity) is drawn by God what is the point of saying that no one can come unless the Father draws him?
ReplyDeleteDan responded: "1) It indicates man's natural state and dependence on God."
a) That might make sense if Jesus was explaining the belief of the believers, rather than the unbelief of the unbelievers. But the latter is the situation posed; and
b) If UPG is true, there is no one in their "natural" state.
Dan responded: "2) God does not draw all men all the time."
We (Calvinists) certainly believe that. It's unclear how that position could be reconciled with UPG, however.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhat is Isaiah 5:4 about?
Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
You may be aware that some (perhaps most?) Calvinists would relate this metaphorical language to the many blessings given to the nation of Israel as a nation.
Since you've brought it up, and since you seem to acknowledge that it is not about regeneration, what do you think it is about, based on its context or whatever other tools should be applied to understand it?
- TurretinFan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteNo doubt that it was a mixed audience, but the ones in verse 14 seem to be the one that Jesus is referencing in verse 26. Also, Turretinfan brings up a good point in that Jesus is saying why some do not believe.
Also, it seems from the text that all that is drawn by the Father are ones that Jesus will raise up on the last day.
As for my general question I fail to see the point of verse 44 and 65 if all humanity is drawn. In my mind it goes like this
“No one can come to me unless the Father draws him, but no worries mate because my Father draws everyone.”
Perhaps you do not hold to UPG, after all some Arminians believe in particular prevenient grace, but my understanding of that view is that this form of grace only is present with the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. If that is true then God would not draw all humanity and Arminianism would lose some of its luster.
One more while it is on my mind, you wrote-
3) If regeneration is defined in a broad sense, the way Calvinists sometimes do, to include God's supernatural work within man to enable a response with the goal of converting that person, then yes Is 5:4 is about regeneration.
Are you suggesting that Isaiah 5:4 is discussing God’s supernatural work done within man? I must admit I’ve never viewed it as such, nor have I come across it in my readings. Could you elaborate a bit more on this view that the verse is speaking about God’s supernatural work done inside a man so that perhaps I could understand it better. Just so you know my train of thought here, it seems to me that you are comparing this verse to say the opening of Lydia’s heart, is that how you understand Isaiah 5:4?
Godismyjudge--
ReplyDeleteYou replied:
"I don't think so, since it's every man that hears and learns. This leaves room for the idea that some people hear but don't learn."
But if the "taught" group is the same as the "heard and learned" group, then doesn't that seem to mean that everyone who gets grace is regenerated? Or would you say that the "hear" group is the broad category of those given grace, and the "taught/learn" category is a subset? If so, I would like to hear a Calvinist respond, because I think they would say the text indicates that "heard and learned" is the same group.
You wrote:
"The other thing is that just because you have to go through a process to get to a result does not mean that everyone that starts the process gets to the result. For example, lots of folks drop out of school, but only those who start school graduate."
Sure, but if all those who hear are those who learn, then the process is guaranteed to complete, which seems to fit better with a monergistic take on the process.
I was wondering how would you reply to this part in Turretinfan's post?:
"Instead, the correct way to understand "taught" as being in parallel to "heard and learn." They are two ways of talking about the same group. Those who are God-instructed are the same ones who hear and learn. Everyone who is taught by God (i.e. who hears and learns) comes to God (vs. 45), and only those come (vs. 44). This is similar to the discussion later in the chapter in which Jesus explains that everyone who eats of him will have eternal life (vs. 54) and only those (vs. 53)."
and this part?:
"Perhaps one could try to seize on the terms "heard" and "learned" (since in some cases those terms can have more proactive senses - though there is no reason to impose such a meaning here). Nevertheless, the rest of Jesus' explanation for why the people shouldn't murmur would not make sense."
And I'm curious what you would say about the suggestion that the explanation for unbelief is lack of the Father's drawing.
Dear TF,
ReplyDeletea) That might make sense if Jesus was explaining the belief of the believers, rather than the unbelief of the unbelievers. But the latter is the situation posed; and
He is explaing both the belief of believers and the unbelief of unbelievers, but neither is His main point.
b) If UPG is true, there is no one in their "natural" state.
Not true.
Dan responded: "2) God does not draw all men all the time."
We (Calvinists) certainly believe that. It's unclear how that position could be reconciled with UPG, however.
Just currious, but what are the primary sources for your understanding of the Arminian views of grace.
God be with you,
Dan
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteNo doubt that it was a mixed audience, but the ones in verse 14 seem to be the one that Jesus is referencing in verse 26.
You didn't mention any reason why you make this connection. Do you have one?
I don't connect them because they believed Christ to be the Messiah and because in verse Christ specifically says in verse 26 that they didn't seek Him because of the sign, but in verse 14 they confess Jesus to be Messiah because of the sign.
Also, Turretinfan brings up a good point in that Jesus is saying why some do not believe.
Please see above.
Also, it seems from the text that all that is drawn by the Father are ones that Jesus will raise up on the last day.
This is ambigous. While those the people Christ mentions were drawn and raised up, the text does not say everyone ever drawn are raised up.
As for my general question I fail to see the point of verse 44 and 65 if all humanity is drawn. In my mind it goes like this
“No one can come to me unless the Father draws him, but no worries mate because my Father draws everyone.”
It doesn't work that way. God said, My Spirit will not always strive with man...
Perhaps you do not hold to UPG, after all some Arminians believe in particular prevenient grace, but my understanding of that view is that this form of grace only is present with the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. If that is true then God would not draw all humanity and Arminianism would lose some of its luster.
Luster? I do take Arminius' approach on this subject, rather than Wesley's.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI make the connection by following the flow of the narrative. The ones who thought that Jesus was that Prophet were the same ones that followed him across the sea. I see no reason to make these people in verse 14 be disciples and you have given me no evidence to the contrary. Instead we are told that those same men wanted to take him by force and Jesus left. So while they had some idea of who he was they did not know him at all and immediately show their true colors by wanting to take him by force and make him a king. That fits in perfectly with verse 26, Jesus tells them that the real reason they are seeking him is because they think that the good times are here.
When we are told that they did not seek him because of the sign we see that they really had no belief in Christ at all, they wanted to reap the benefits of what they thought making him King would bring, but they did not understand
It doesn’t work that way
What??? The reason you do not believe is because my Father has not drawn you. Is it your position that the Father draws everyone?
Luster, meaning that with such a view some of the shine of the Arminian golden calf would lose some luster (or shine or polish).
When you say that it is not true that UPG puts no one in their “natural” state what exactly do you mean? Perhaps you could elaborate more on what UPG does.
Also, what of Isaiah 5:4 and the question pertaining to that?
But if the "taught" group is the same as the "heard and learned" group, then doesn't that seem to mean that everyone who gets grace is regenerated?
ReplyDeleteWithin the scope of this passages (i.e. the specific folks Christ was takling about), yes. But from this, we cannot draw a general principle that all drawn, come or all that hear, learn. And this is because Christ is talking about the result, not the process.
Or would you say that the "hear" group is the broad category of those given grace, and the "taught/learn" category is a subset?
That seems accurate, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it.
Sure, but if all those who hear are those who learn, then the process is guaranteed to complete
The passage doesn't say this. If it did, I would be a Calvinist.
I was wondering how would you reply to this part in Turretinfan's post?:
"Instead, the correct way to understand "taught" as being in parallel to "heard and learn." They are two ways of talking about the same group. Those who are God-instructed are the same ones who hear and learn. Everyone who is taught by God (i.e. who hears and learns) comes to God (vs. 45), and only those come (vs. 44). This is similar to the discussion later in the chapter in which Jesus explains that everyone who eats of him will have eternal life (vs. 54) and only those (vs. 53)."
and this part?:
"Perhaps one could try to seize on the terms "heard" and "learned" (since in some cases those terms can have more proactive senses - though there is no reason to impose such a meaning here). Nevertheless, the rest of Jesus' explanation for why the people shouldn't murmur would not make sense."
I will comment on the reason for unbelief below...
As for the rest, I agree with TF as far as this passage goes. The disconnect is not so much in the interpretation as it is in the application of the interpretation to systematic theology. Since Christ is talking about those taught and those who came and those drawn and those who learned, can we apply the same general principle to those who are being taught, those comming, those learning and those being drawn? Not necessarily. Doing so assumes some things the passage does not say.
And I'm curious what you would say about the suggestion that the explanation for unbelief is lack of the Father's drawing.
TF's explination stikes me as counter-intuitive. It would be like telling someone they are at fault for something they cannot do.
Looking at the text, John 6:37-40 is a retorical device in ABCBA format; which helps explain Christ's main point:
A - 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not
B - 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
C 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
B- 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
A - 40 And this the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
The central point is clear - Christ does not act on His own, but does the will of the Father, especially with regard to salvation. This answers the Jew's main 9argument - "We believe in God but not you.". The rest is just the supporting structure.
The two A's tell us that some people see Christ and believe others see Christ and don't believe. The B's describe the link between the Father and the Son in the work of salvation. The Father gives people to the Son and the Son saves them.
So as far as explaining why some believe and others don't... it does not directly address it but something on that topic is implied. Namely, thier issue is with the Father first, then the Son.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSo as far as explaining why some believe and others don't... it does not directly address it but something on that topic is implied. Namely, thier issue is with the Father first, then the Son.
It seems that an explanation is given when we read
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
We are then told by Jesus who would come to him
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
To drive the point home a little later Jesus tells us again why some do not believe
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
So we see that no one can come unto Jesus without the Father drawing him and giving him to Jesus and all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus and he will raise him up at the last day.
I guess I fail to see how you think that the text does not directly address why some believe and others don’t.
Here are my comments on Is 5:4:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.arminianchronicles.com/2010/04/isaiah-54-and-sufficient-grace.html
God be with you,
Dan
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteThe reason you do not believe is because my Father has not drawn you
Please don't say or imply that I am unsaved.
Is it your position that the Father draws everyone?
No, not the way I understand drawing here. Granted all men are under the law at some point, which is leading them to Christ, but not all come to a point of fearing judgement and knowing they need a Savior.
Luster, meaning that with such a view some of the shine of the Arminian golden calf would lose some luster (or shine or polish).
Please do not say or imply that Arminianism is idolitry.
When you say that it is not true that UPG puts no one in their “natural” state what exactly do you mean? Perhaps you could elaborate more on what UPG does.
I recommend Arminius' commentary on Romans 7.
God be with you,
Dan
It seems that an explanation is given when we read
ReplyDeleteAnd Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
We are then told by Jesus who would come to him
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
To drive the point home a little later Jesus tells us again why some do not believe
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
So we see that no one can come unto Jesus without the Father drawing him and giving him to Jesus and all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus and he will raise him up at the last day.
I guess I fail to see how you think that the text does not directly address why some believe and others don’t.
Because the text does not say they were not drawn or the abiltiy to come was not given to them by the Father.
God be with you,
Dan
Here is what Gill has written on Isaiah 5:4
ReplyDeleteWhat I hear you saying is that God MUST provide sufficient grace to enable people to follow His command or else He can only blame Himself. I assume this is the prevenient grace that Arminians always go on about?
So when TF rightly said that this grace puts no one in their “natural” state you disagreed, but it appears that that is exactly what you are arguing for here.
One more point I would like to get cleared up, do you believe that Isaiah 5:4 is discussing the supernatural work done inside a man by God?
BTW, I never meant to question your salvation. I was answering your ambiguous answer to my
“No one can come to me unless the Father draws him, but no worries mate because my Father draws everyone.”
Perhaps I should have worded it better, but I was not speaking to your salvation or questioning it in any way. I do apologize for the ambiguity in my writing that would give you the impression that I was question it.
The text does say that ALL that the Father gives the Son will raise up.
The whole point of the text is to tell them why they do not believe. No offense but your view is all over the place here.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI almost forgot to address the idolatry comment; I do believe that Arminianism holds to some tenets that are idolatrous.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteLast thing, you wrote
Because the text does not say they were not drawn or the abiltiy to come was not given to them by the Father.
How do you square that with this
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Here it seems that Jesus makes it very clear why they do not believe.
It goes back to my general question, if all are given the ability to come and are drawn by the Father than this whole section does not make sense. Hence my comment that “No worries mate, my Father draws all and gives everyone the ability to come to me.”
Godismyjudge said...
ReplyDelete"This discussion does not really support your primary prooftext; John 6:37-45. Do you have any other arguments in favor of Calvinism from that text?"
i) What makes you think Jn 6:37-45 is my primary prooftext?
I don't deny that Jn 6:37-44 is a Reformed prooftext (and properly so), but why think it's primary compared with scores of other Reformed prooftexts?
ii) I'm not exegeting this text at the moment. I'm merely responding to your comment. For exegesis, one place to start is Carson's commentary on John.
TF's explination stikes me as counter-intuitive. It would be like telling someone they are at fault for something they cannot do.
ReplyDeleteGod is often counterintuitive to fallen human beings because of our sinfulness.
God commanded Israel to keep the whole law, something they could not do. Only ONE man ever kept the whole law perfectly.
God commands men to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, something they cannot do. Only ONE man ever loved God perfectly in this manner.
God's standards of holiness and righteousnes didn't change because of the fall, man changed. We became wholly corrupted and all of us have turned away, not one of us seeks after God, no not one.
This is because the flesh is at enmity with God and cannot submit to Him, much less is it able or willing to seek after Him.
As Ezekiel 37:26-27 explain, God takes the initiative to replace fallen man's heart of stone with a heart of flesh, moving them to follow His decrees. Man can't perform this spiritual open heart surgery upon Himself, God must do it for him.
Yet even as all men everywhere are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), we know from that all men everywhere are unable to respond to this command, much less obey it, without the inner change of heart wrought by grace and grace alone.
God's awesome commands and decrees ought to bring sinful men to the end of themselves as they realize their utter inability to meet His inflexible requirements for absolute perfection, purity, and holiness, causing them to cast themselves upon His infinite mercy and to trust in Him as their only Savior.
Instead sinful men look at God's requirements and say, "Yeah, I can do that" and they set out to make a righteousness of their own.
And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up." (Mark 10:20)
May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering.
In Christ,
CD
"God's electing a certain definite number is a manifestation of His glory. It shows the glory of His divine sovereignty. God is declaring His absolute sovereignty over His creation. He is showing us just how far that sovereignty extends. In purposely choosing some and passing on others, He shows that His majesty and power are unparalled. Those who do not see glory and dominion in election simply do not understand God. They are not aware of His greatness, and do not understand grace.
ReplyDeleteGrace is defined in election. God chose His people to happiness and glory long before they were born. He chose them out of the mass of fallen mankind. He loved them before they knew Him. He chose them when they did not deserve to be chosen. That is grace!
The doctrine of election shows that if those who received God's grace had earnestly sought it, it was God's grace that caused them to seek it. It shows that even their faith itself is the gift of God, and their persevering in a way of holiness unto glory is also the fruit of electing love.
Believer's love of God is the fruit of and because of God's love to them. The giving of Christ, the preaching of the gospel, and the appointing of ordinances are all fruits of the grace of election. All the grace that is shown to mankind, either in this world or in the world to come, is comprised of the electing love of God."
- Jonathan Edwards
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing; Romans 8:28-30 proves conclusively that all who are called were predestined to be called, justified, and glorified.
ReplyDeleteClearly this cannot and does not refer to the outward call of the gospel, but to the inward call of the Holy Spirit which infallibly completes His work of drawing all those to Christ for whom He gave His life as a ransom on the cross, who are the selfsame elect that God from eternity past decreed should be His covenant people.
Soli Deo Gloria!
In Christ,
CD
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteWhat I hear you saying is that God MUST provide sufficient grace to enable people to follow His command or else He can only blame Himself.
That's not what I am saying.
Please see this post:
http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2008/05/commands-and-invitations-for-impossible.html
One more point I would like to get cleared up, do you believe that Isaiah 5:4 is discussing the supernatural work done inside a man by God?
Sure. A bad grape producer can't become a good grape producer without God's internal work in their life.
The text does say that ALL that the Father gives the Son will raise up.
Granted. But I am unconvinced that being given by the Father to the Son is the same as being drawn.
God be with you,
Dan
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteLast thing, you wrote
Because the text does not say they were not drawn or the abiltiy to come was not given to them by the Father.
How do you square that with this
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
They didn't believe the Father so the Father wasn't drawing them to the Son. This simply points them back to the Father rather than ultimatly explaining their unbelief.
God be with you,
Dan
Steve,
ReplyDeletei) What makes you think Jn 6:37-45 is my primary prooftext?
I don't deny that Jn 6:37-44 is a Reformed prooftext (and properly so), but why think it's primary compared with scores of other Reformed prooftexts?
ii) I'm not exegeting this text at the moment. I'm merely responding to your comment. For exegesis, one place to start is Carson's commentary on John.
Thanks for the Carson suggestion. The two passages I hear Calvinists bring up the most are Romans 9 and John 6. I have even heard folks give something of a testamony of their conversion to Calvinism due to John 6. Also, James White seems fairly big on it.
God be with you,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIf you want a rough idea of what prooftexts the Reformed traditionally cite for their position, a good overview is:
_The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented_ by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn.
Of course, a work of this kind isn't going to delve into all of the exegetical arguments and counterarguments, much less the philosophical issues.
But it certainly corrects the popular misimpression that Calvinism relies on a just a little smattering of prooftexts.
Dear CD,
ReplyDeleteTF's explination stikes me as counter-intuitive. It would be like telling someone they are at fault for something they cannot do.
God is often counterintuitive to fallen human beings because of our sinfulness.
Good point! I misspoke. Thanks for correcting me.
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks Steve. I understand there are piles of texts on each side, which is why systemization and the stronger texts become key.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Dan
Old post but for the sake anyone dealing with this objection. Here is an outline of answers
ReplyDeleteA.Not how you would think of word Draw. That's not how Draw is normally understood.
B. Verse 65 not coming because not granted, not because not hearing
C. Emphasis of this verse is the Fathers work
D. This doesn't fit well with UPG and LFW, if sufficient grace given to all the Father wouldn't be the difference maker as the explanation.
E. The difference maker is the teaching and wooing of the Lord 'taught of God,' not the one learning, he will teach them in such a way to illuminate and regenerate. (Rom 9:16 depends not on human will)
F. Luke 10:21 - He hides things and only reveals to some , so it is God's part not man's
G. God has a kind of teaching aspect that actually saves - Jer 31:34
H. So not drawn because of man, but assumes God equally teaching all. That is manifestly untrue in our real life experience and in the Scriptures. So if not equally teaching all that is the election aspect we are saying, he is choosing who he will give this teaching to.
I. If he draws them they will be saved
J. Can block his drawing power? - Verse 37 All Father gives comes to me, If the Father draws them then Christ will raise them up. Nothing in this verse about stopping that