Something to consider. When parents brought their children to Jesus, the disciples told Jesus to send those snot nosed children away. Jesus looked into the crowd, saw the 3 elect children and told them to send the 297 other children away. Right!?! Not at all. He told them to forbid them not and blessed them ALL. Why would He do that if Calvinism were even 1% true? TRUTH IN LOVE
The text does NOT say that it is irresistible, but says that you have no way to reach Jesus, if the Father does not draw you. I mean, IF you get to Jesus, this is God's grace that prompted you in which direction to go in order to get to the Truth!
Hearing the voice of the audible Father, calling me by name, while I was in fornication, drugs, partying, etc. I personally know that His Voice was NOT irresistible, but it urged me to Jesus. I personally KNOW that I had a CHOICE. It's been almost 10 years since that event and Calvinism, when I came across it, seemed to me to be nothing more than a wandering work that destroys the motivation to evangelize and intercede
I was Pagan and now I’m not and can’t explain it.....I’m Christian now and feel maybe God changed me....can that be right? Now I’m realizing it’s end times and I feel maybe that’s why he did it.
Did you ever listen to Steve Gregg and James White debate? I would be interested in your commentary on that debate. Because of how Steve Gregg influenced you in seeing errors in reformed theology.
What’s wrong with Calvinism? It’s only around because of Jacobus Arminius. Before Jacobus Arminius and after Jacobus Arminius God was sovereign in salvation and still is.
@@anthonyg5055 First of all the comment was to Simple Bible Man. But since you asked, God was, is, and always will be sovereign over salvation. In His sovereignty, however, He has commanded all men to respond with the responsibility He gave them to believe or reject, and reap the consequences of their choosing. You probably won't agree but that's YOUR CHOICE. Take care...
@@patrickg.7668 thanks for responding that was very nice of you. I figured since this is a public forum I would simply ask a question. Especially with SBM leaving RUclips per his last video. It’s sad to see him walk away from the doctrines of grace to follow Jacobus Arminius theology i’ll just leave it at that. Have a great Lords day!
Kinda shocked you just dismissed how the Greek literally means “drag”. It’s like you were satisfied enough to not address it as long as it proves Calvinists wrong (even though you don’t explain exactly how it proves their position wrong) though it does prove your own position even more wrong.
"Drag" is just one of the definitions within the semantic range of helko. While it can mean "drag", that is a literal understanding seen in Scripture passages, while other definitions are more figurative, to "impel, lead". And it's this second definition that most see in the verse because Jesus isn't mentioning a literal dragging, and it's the context, not a theology or framework, that determines the proper definition.
Ask God to remove the religious scales from your eyes, then follow the renewal of the mind according to the Truth, not according to the religious "contact lenses"
I do not claim to be Calvinistic but I I think the word study you are focused on should be more on "draw" here. And from what I see you are signing off of RUclips so maybe you wont see this. The word "draw" here is in the Greek "elkusē" which means "to drag". When they would draw water from the well, it was a labor intensive "pulling and dragging" of the bucket. I think we can all assume "drag" does not incite "full willingness". And I do not shy away from this use/meaning of the word because it is the literal word being used! And it speaks more of the wrestling people go through in life when they know they are being pursued by something greater than them. Their sin convicts them and the struggles in their life is bringing them to revelation of who they are truly apart from God which brings them to their knees and an end of themselves. The Lord is pursuing them and they keep trying to deny it, like the father of the prodigal son who was "far out from home" when he saw the son come back home. He was out looking for his child. So I ask, does that imagery paint a mean God or a loving God?
Yes this is true. A lot of people believe Christianity is true but they don't want to submit to the salvation of Christ because they love their lives more than they want to be saved from it
The same word is used in the Septuagint here.... Hosea 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them. 5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return. They were drawn but did not respond. I think the emphasis should be placed on the time and audience. This was before Jesus was lifted up. Before the Gentiles were welcomed into the kingdom. Israel was hardened so that they could not believe. So no one could come at that time except for the elect of Israel who already feared God and were waiting for the Messiah. This would be the faithful remnant. The drawing simply be the Father revealing to them the identity of Jesus. They wouldn’t resist His Son if they already desired Him. So they would come being that they feared Him already and awaited the arrival of the Messiah. John 6:45 says that they were taught of God and learned. The OT tells us how God taught people. It’s through the prophets. If they had believed Moses, they would believe Jesus. If they were baptized by John, they would come to Jesus. It’s a matter of whether or not they had learned before the hardening was placed upon the nation.
"No one can come to me". Curious wording here. His audience is currently present with him. Could it be possible that He could be referring to a future time when He is in heaven. I think the context would support this. He is the bread that came down from heaven, and is going to ascend back to heaven (6:62). Could the "drawing" be physical and not spiritual, as so many have presumed? Could not this "drawing" be of believers to heaven where Christ is, rather than of unbelievers to faith? I think too many assumptions are brought to this text. I also think we too often "spiritualize" statements made by Christ that are meant to be understood literally.
Interesting. I prefer the leighton Flowers interpretation of the fact they were being hardened/blinded to accomplish Jesus's goals of being crucified, so because they were fleshly they didn't see the parallel with the 5000 and the Mana, so instead of making it clearer he made it harder by talking in a way that implies cannibalism, but isn't, and then said they won't stay unless the father draws them. The disciples stayed, and in John 17, in the priestly prayer, he refers to the disciples specifically as "Those You have given me" and that he kept them "save the son of perdition" (meaning Judas), showing he's speaking of the 12 and not "the elect" of soteriology. He also talks about those who know his voice too, being the who know the fathers voice... in other words, his followers already feared and loved the Father, do they were naturally drawn to Jesus, and because of this they stayed despite him saying hard things because "you have the words of life".
The Calvinist is just looking for a 'proof text to support their doctrinal position and ignoring the 'context' as needed, which is so often the case. I see in John 6 re; no one comes to Jesus except God draws them has a different context at that moment in Jesus' ministry. I don't read it in the context of salvation, I see it being about the 12 disciples God has given to him up to that point in time. He even says one of them is a ‘devil’ but he will not cast him out. After reading the whole chapter as it sets the scene, the bigger picture, Jesus fed the thousands the day before, crossed the sea and they followed after him for more food and miracles. Jesus has just taught about eating his flesh and drinking his blood declaring himself to be, 'the bread of life' addressing his deity in a manner which he knew would repulse them. What he was saying was blatant heresy to the many disciples who had begun to follow him and after this many, if not most, left. Vs.66 “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (At this point in His ministry it was not the goal of Jesus to convince people he was the messiah, it was to set the stage for his own death at their hands.) He then questions the 12 will you leave also? And Peter and the others affirm they believe he is the Christ. Kevin Thompson points out another interesting fact, it is clear that God was drawing men throughout history before the Cross and that Jesus says if he is 'lifted up'/crucified he will draw ALL men unto himself, which seems to level the field on who gets drawn, dragged, pushed or towed to me. I don't think there is any reference to God actually drawing anybody after the crucifixion, not saying God doesn't or can't but I can't find it stated that God draws anyone beyond the resurrection. (Of course it could be argued in semantics that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are all God etc.)
I think you are having hard time to interpret the verse you are forcing it to be in accordance in your new perspective of none Calvinist. So shallow make it clearer next time...
Something to consider.
When parents brought their children to Jesus, the disciples told Jesus to send those snot nosed children away.
Jesus looked into the crowd, saw the 3 elect children and told them to send the 297 other children away. Right!?!
Not at all. He told them to forbid them not and blessed them ALL.
Why would He do that if Calvinism were even 1% true?
TRUTH IN LOVE
The text does NOT say that it is irresistible, but says that you have no way to reach Jesus, if the Father does not draw you. I mean, IF you get to Jesus, this is God's grace that prompted you in which direction to go in order to get to the Truth!
Hearing the voice of the audible Father, calling me by name, while I was in fornication, drugs, partying, etc. I personally know that His Voice was NOT irresistible, but it urged me to Jesus. I personally KNOW that I had a CHOICE. It's been almost 10 years since that event and Calvinism, when I came across it, seemed to me to be nothing more than a wandering work that destroys the motivation to evangelize and intercede
"How can a non calvinist get around this verse?" Probably not the best question...
I was Pagan and now I’m not and can’t explain it.....I’m Christian now and feel maybe God changed me....can that be right? Now I’m realizing it’s end times and I feel maybe that’s why he did it.
Did you ever listen to Steve Gregg and James White debate?
I would be interested in your commentary on that debate.
Because of how Steve Gregg influenced you in seeing errors in reformed theology.
I praise God you're out of Calvinism! I pray you continue to untangle those knots.
What’s wrong with Calvinism? It’s only around because of Jacobus Arminius. Before Jacobus Arminius and after Jacobus Arminius God was sovereign in salvation and still is.
@@anthonyg5055 First of all the comment was to Simple Bible Man.
But since you asked, God was, is, and always will be sovereign over salvation. In His sovereignty, however, He has commanded all men to respond with the responsibility He gave them to believe or reject, and reap the consequences of their choosing. You probably won't agree but that's YOUR CHOICE.
Take care...
@@patrickg.7668 thanks for responding that was very nice of you. I figured since this is a public forum I would simply ask a question. Especially with SBM leaving RUclips per his last video. It’s sad to see him walk away from the doctrines of grace to follow Jacobus Arminius theology
i’ll just leave it at that. Have a great Lords day!
@@anthonyg5055 You have a great Lord's Day as well sir.
So glad I'm not the only one who has come out of this blasphemy.
Kinda shocked you just dismissed how the Greek literally means “drag”. It’s like you were satisfied enough to not address it as long as it proves Calvinists wrong (even though you don’t explain exactly how it proves their position wrong) though it does prove your own position even more wrong.
He can’t hear you he left RUclips. But I agree with you.
"Drag" is just one of the definitions within the semantic range of helko. While it can mean "drag", that is a literal understanding seen in Scripture passages, while other definitions are more figurative, to "impel, lead". And it's this second definition that most see in the verse because Jesus isn't mentioning a literal dragging, and it's the context, not a theology or framework, that determines the proper definition.
Ask God to remove the religious scales from your eyes, then follow the renewal of the mind according to the Truth, not according to the religious "contact lenses"
good video, it makes sense. Thanks
How does the Father draw people to Jesus? My means of the gospel. You can read the entire NT that this is how the Father draws people to Jesus.
Did paul resist the calling of the Lord to preach the gospel to the gentiles?...
I do not claim to be Calvinistic but I I think the word study you are focused on should be more on "draw" here. And from what I see you are signing off of RUclips so maybe you wont see this. The word "draw" here is in the Greek "elkusē" which means "to drag". When they would draw water from the well, it was a labor intensive "pulling and dragging" of the bucket. I think we can all assume "drag" does not incite "full willingness". And I do not shy away from this use/meaning of the word because it is the literal word being used! And it speaks more of the wrestling people go through in life when they know they are being pursued by something greater than them. Their sin convicts them and the struggles in their life is bringing them to revelation of who they are truly apart from God which brings them to their knees and an end of themselves. The Lord is pursuing them and they keep trying to deny it, like the father of the prodigal son who was "far out from home" when he saw the son come back home. He was out looking for his child. So I ask, does that imagery paint a mean God or a loving God?
Yes this is true. A lot of people believe Christianity is true but they don't want to submit to the salvation of Christ because they love their lives more than they want to be saved from it
The same word is used in the Septuagint here....
Hosea 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.
5 He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.
They were drawn but did not respond.
I think the emphasis should be placed on the time and audience. This was before Jesus was lifted up. Before the Gentiles were welcomed into the kingdom.
Israel was hardened so that they could not believe. So no one could come at that time except for the elect of Israel who already feared God and were waiting for the Messiah.
This would be the faithful remnant. The drawing simply be the Father revealing to them the identity of Jesus. They wouldn’t resist His Son if they already desired Him.
So they would come being that they feared Him already and awaited the arrival of the Messiah.
John 6:45 says that they were taught of God and learned. The OT tells us how God taught people. It’s through the prophets. If they had believed Moses, they would believe Jesus. If they were baptized by John, they would come to Jesus. It’s a matter of whether or not they had learned before the hardening was placed upon the nation.
"No one can come to me". Curious wording here. His audience is currently present with him. Could it be possible that He could be referring to a future time when He is in heaven. I think the context would support this. He is the bread that came down from heaven, and is going to ascend back to heaven (6:62). Could the "drawing" be physical and not spiritual, as so many have presumed? Could not this "drawing" be of believers to heaven where Christ is, rather than of unbelievers to faith?
I think too many assumptions are brought to this text. I also think we too often "spiritualize" statements made by Christ that are meant to be understood literally.
Interesting. I prefer the leighton Flowers interpretation of the fact they were being hardened/blinded to accomplish Jesus's goals of being crucified, so because they were fleshly they didn't see the parallel with the 5000 and the Mana, so instead of making it clearer he made it harder by talking in a way that implies cannibalism, but isn't, and then said they won't stay unless the father draws them. The disciples stayed, and in John 17, in the priestly prayer, he refers to the disciples specifically as "Those You have given me" and that he kept them "save the son of perdition" (meaning Judas), showing he's speaking of the 12 and not "the elect" of soteriology.
He also talks about those who know his voice too, being the who know the fathers voice... in other words, his followers already feared and loved the Father, do they were naturally drawn to Jesus, and because of this they stayed despite him saying hard things because "you have the words of life".
The Calvinist is just looking for a 'proof text to support their doctrinal position and ignoring the 'context' as needed, which is so often the case. I see in John 6 re; no one comes to Jesus except God draws them has a different context at that moment in Jesus' ministry. I don't read it in the context of salvation, I see it being about the 12 disciples God has given to him up to that point in time. He even says one of them is a ‘devil’ but he will not cast him out. After reading the whole chapter as it sets the scene, the bigger picture, Jesus fed the thousands the day before, crossed the sea and they followed after him for more food and miracles. Jesus has just taught about eating his flesh and drinking his blood declaring himself to be, 'the bread of life' addressing his deity in a manner which he knew would repulse them. What he was saying was blatant heresy to the many disciples who had begun to follow him and after this many, if not most, left. Vs.66 “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (At this point in His ministry it was not the goal of Jesus to convince people he was the messiah, it was to set the stage for his own death at their hands.) He then questions the 12 will you leave also? And Peter and the others affirm they believe he is the Christ. Kevin Thompson points out another interesting fact, it is clear that God was drawing men throughout history before the Cross and that Jesus says if he is 'lifted up'/crucified he will draw ALL men unto himself, which seems to level the field on who gets drawn, dragged, pushed or towed to me. I don't think there is any reference to God actually drawing anybody after the crucifixion, not saying God doesn't or can't but I can't find it stated that God draws anyone beyond the resurrection. (Of course it could be argued in semantics that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are all God etc.)
I think you are having hard time to interpret the verse you are forcing it to be in accordance in your new perspective of none Calvinist. So shallow make it clearer next time...