Drawn by the Father – John 6 (Part 1 – The Big Picture)

John 6:37, 44 and 65

All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Calvinism’s challenge:

These verses are some of the clearest verses teaching the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. In John 6:44 Jesus makes it clear that no man in all of history can come to Jesus unless the Father personally draws him. And in verse 37 Jesus says plainly that those who have belonged to God from all eternity will most certainly come. The conclusion is inescapable; only those chosen by God will come and those chosen will most certainly come. This is irresistible grace plain and simple!

Biblical Response:

It must be admitted that without considering the historical context of John’s Gospel and the situation of early church, these passages seem to say just what Reformed Theology says they do. But as disciples of Christ we must always consider the context of scripture before drawing any conclusions. In order to clarify the context of these often misused verses we will ask three questions: What, Who and How.

What is Historic Context and Purpose of John’s Gospel?

Before considering John 6:37 and 44 in their immediate context it is important for us to first take a look at the big picture. By looking at the historical context of John’s Gospel as a whole we will come to understand the purpose for which it was written. This will help us as we turn our attention to the events and dialogue of John chapter 6.

“In the beginning,” from the story of creation until the twelfth chapter of Genesis, God dealt with humanity from all nations. Then in chapter 12 God began to focus his attentions on Abraham and his descendants. God had chosen Abraham so that through him he could build a nation that would “bless all nations” by the coming of Christ (Gen.12:1-3). He kept that narrow focus until the time for that world-wide blessing had come. John’s Gospel proclaims, “In the beginning was the Word,” and that eternal Word had now come into the world as “the true light, which enlightens everyone” (John 1:1-9).

God sent a messenger to be a witness to the coming of the Messiah, John the Baptist. John was sent so “that through him all might believe” (John 1:7 – NIV). But most of the Jews rejected God’s desire for them. So John writes, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11). But this did not destroy God’s plan, because Jesus did not only come for Israel. So though the majority of Israel had rejected him, “to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). God was once again focusing on all nations. He was not concerned with someone’s natural ancestry, but with how they responded to his Son. Jesus came to save everyone who would place their trust in him no matter what nation they were from.

This was the context of John’s Gospel; this was the controversy of his day. Messianic blessing was not for Israel only, but through Christ all could be saved. By the time John wrote his Gospel there were more non-Jewish believers in Messiah than Jewish ones. The Jewish religious leaders of John’s days persecuted Jewish believers in Messiah and despised the Gentile followers of Christ. Christians, even the Jewish ones, were not allowed to attend the synagogues. In Revelation 2:9 Jesus refers to the Jewish attitude towards the Christians during the time we are considering, “I know … the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” And again he says, “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie – behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that I have loved you” (Rev. 3:9).

The Gospel of John was written to encourage the believers in Christ that they were the people of God, and to encourage unbelievers of all nations that they could become part of God’s holy people by trusting in Christ. John’s way of encouraging those persecuted by the Jewish authorities was to show the hostility Christ faced from the Jewish authorities of his day. And to let them see that those among the Jewish nation that rejected Christ were never part of God’s true people. John’s Gospel taught them what Paul teaches elsewhere for nearly the same reason, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6).

A Quick Glance

As we skim through the Gospel of John we will see that almost every chapter in some way refers back to this historical context. John wrote his Gospel to encourage Christians, both Jew and Gentile, that they were the true people of God; that it is not ancestry, but faith, that pleases God. In chapter 1 verse 29 we read John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” To us this is a simple statement of fact, but to the Jewish leaders of John the Baptist’s day it challenged their assumption that the Messiah was only for the Jews. In John 1:47 we see Jesus make one’s character and spiritual condition the means of determining who are true Jews when he declares of Nathanael, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!”

In chapter 2 Jesus prophesies, with his actions, about the soon destruction of the Jewish temple. He shows his displeasure with the corrupt practices of the Jewish nation by turning over the tables of the money-changers and chasing out those selling animals for sacrifice with a whip (vs. 13-17). He goes even further by declaring that from now on his body will be the temple of God, making himself the center of all those devoted to worshipping God (vs. 18-22).

In John 3:16 we read the ultimate controversial statement. Jesus proclaims that Israel was not the sole focus of God’s saving love, but that “God … loved the world.” And he again emphasizes that it is not being Jewish that makes one acceptable to God, but “whoever believes” will receive eternal life. In verse 18 Jesus declares that being Jewish cannot save anyone when he declares that “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” What is to us such a natural summary of the Christian faith was horribly offensive to the Jewish leaders of the Apostle John’s day, and would have been very encouraging to John’s Christian readers.

In chapter 4 we read about a confusing day in the life of Jesus’ Jewish disciples. Not only did he minister to a Samaritan woman, but then he goes on to minister to her entire village. In his ministry to her he made it clear that one’s spiritual standing with God will no longer be dependent on any national or racial traditions. He told her in verses 21 and 23, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father…. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” He made himself the center of all true religion when he told her, “Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (vs. 14). At the end of his time with the Samaritans they made an explosive statement about the Jewish Messiah, “We know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (vs. 42).

In chapter 5 verses 19-47 Jesus confronts the religious leaders and tells them that by rejecting him, they have rejected God. He offends their religious pride by accusing them of not believing in the writings of Moses when he says, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (vs. 46-47) He challenges them to stop merely reading the scriptures and believe them; for life is not found in the Bible, it is found in him (vs. 39). But he knows they won’t come to him for life because they have never listened to God’s voice and do not have God’s word inside of them (vs. 37-38). Because of their rejection of him he concluded that they “do not have the love of God within” them (vs. 42). We must understand that he is declaring plainly that these religious Jews, zealous for the Law, did not belong to God. No wonder they wanted to kill him!

In chapter 7 verse 17 he accuses the religious leaders of not wanting to do God’s will when he says, “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will” he will believe in me. They show that they don’t want to do God’s will by rejecting him. In Chapter 8 he tells them that they are “slave[s] to sin” (vs. 34) and are not Abraham’s true descendants (vs. 39-40). He goes on to tell them that they are not children of God as they claim, but are actually children of the Devil, who seek their father’s desires (vs. 41-44). He concludes by telling them, “Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God” (vs. 47). This was quite an amazing thing to say to the leaders of God’s chosen nation! In doing so he made it clear once again that ancestry has no benefit in the kingdom of God.

In chapter 9 he tells the “enlightened” religious leaders that they are spiritually blind (vs. 39-41). In John 10:7 he calls the leaders of Israel “thieves and robbers.” In John 12:41 we are told that some of the Jews believed in him, “but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue.” And in verse 32 when the Apostles bring some Greeks to talk with him, he declares that after his death he “will draw all people” to himself, not only Jews, but also Gentiles.

John wrote his Gospel to challenge the claims of the Jews in his day. They claimed that only those descended from Abraham belonged to God. Any Gentiles who said they followed the Jewish Messiah were completely “deceived.” And those Jews who followed Jesus were no longer considered part of God’s holy people. John used episodes in Jesus’ ministry and teaching to show that this claim was completely unfounded. It was no longer one’s ancestry or national traditions that determined whether or not they belonged to God, but it was their faith in the Jewish Messiah that made them true members of God’s people. The Apostle John’s point is best summed up by the words of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:8-9, “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” John is telling us, that this is exactly what God has done!

Besides John

John faces this attitude of the Jewish nation to the new born Messianic movement head-on in his Gospel. But he is not the only one who faced it and addressed it. In Matthew 21:33-46 we see that this issue was also on Matthew’s mind. He relates a parable of Jesus about the Jewish religious leaders (vs. 45). In verse 42 he explained that he was the “cornerstone” of Israel and that by rejecting him the leaders of Israel were bringing judgment on themselves. For that reason the kingdom of God was going to be taken away from them and given “to a people producing its fruit” (vs. 43). In their rebellion against God they rejected the Messiah he had sent. They were soon going to “fall on” Jesus and have him crucified, but he would be vindicated by God and come back to “crush” them (vs. 44). The important thing to note in what Matthew relates is that he was making it clear that Israel was being redefined. He was telling his readers that Israel was no longer identified by their blood-relations with Abraham, but by their spiritual relationship with the Messiah.

Peter makes a similar point in 1 Peter 2:1-10. He also points out that Jesus is the cornerstone on which the true Israel of God is built. Those that reject him are under God’s judgment and those that believe are made part of God’s “chosen race, royal priesthood and holy nation” (vs.9). Peter tells them that they were once not a people of any importance, but that in Christ they had been made the people of God (vs. 10). Israel is defined by their response to Jesus Christ, he is the cornerstone! If you trust him you are in, if you reject him you are out!

No one spoke more on this subject than Paul the Apostle. One need only read Galatians 3:15-29 to see this principle clearly presented. Paul wanted the Galatian Gentiles, and any Jews that might be listening in, to know that people were not children of Abraham by their ancestry, but by their faith in Christ Jesus. Jesus was the “seed” of Abraham through whom blessing for the world had been promised (vs. 16). And those that received him would be made the true “seed” of Abraham (vs. 29).

In Romans 9:6-7 Paul wrote, “Not all who are descended from Israel (i.e. Jacob) belong to Israel (i.e. God’s people), and not all are children of Abraham because they are his [physical] offspring.” Starting in the second half of verse 7 and continuing on until verse 13 he shares a principle of how God chooses his people. God promised that the children of Abraham would be blessed, but then he narrows that promise down to the descendants of Isaac only. This means that the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael were excluded from the promise of Abraham. But he doesn’t stop there; he narrows the promise down even more by saying that not all of Isaac’s descendants would receive the blessing, but only those born of Jacob. Esau’s children were descendants of Isaac and should have partaken of the covenant promise to Isaac, but God in his sovereignty limited the promise to the line of Jacob.

Paul shows this pattern in God’s way of election to teach us that now God has once again limited his promise to one of Abraham’s descendants. Peter called this descendant the “cornerstone.” In Galatians Paul used the word “seed” to describe him. But in Romans 9:32-33 he calls him the “stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” He then tells us that those who “believe in him will not be put to shame.” In this way Paul is telling us just what John is trying to convey in his Gospel, namely that the promise of acceptance by God as one of his people is determined by our connection to Christ. The Jews who boasted that they were children of Abraham didn’t have a leg to stand on if they rejected Christ because it was through Christ that Abraham’s children were named (vs. 7).

If we ignore the historical context and overall purpose of John’s Gospel when we come to the verses that we are considering in this series of posts we will grossly misinterpret them as Reformed theology has done. But if we keep the context of the early church’s persecution by the unbelieving Jews in mind we will begin to see John 6:37, 44 and 65 in a whole new light, a biblical light.

In this post we have begin to look at the overall context of John 6. In the next post we will look at the content of John chapters 5, 7 & 8, focusing on how they affect our understanding of John chapter 6.

To be continued…

18 thoughts on “Drawn by the Father – John 6 (Part 1 – The Big Picture)

  1. >>I agree all men in jn12:32 means “all nations” or “both jews & gentiles”<>but then again i have been accuded of reading the context into the text;)<>having said that jn11:49-51 makes it clear jesus died for the “whole nation”<<

    Yes. There are layers of meaning here, of course. But I have no problem with the fact that Jesus' death was "huper" (in place of/on behalf of) the nation as a whole. This, however, does not mean Jesus died in a redemptive way for every individual within the nation any more than his taking away the sins of the "world" implies that the entire world will be saved. My own nutshell view (which probably puts me in the 4.5 Calvinist camp) is as follows: The death of Christ is for "all" but has a twofold purpose: To save the elect and to be the crucial piece of evidence that indicts the reprobate at the judgment. So either the blood covers you or you'll have blood on your hands. Either way, the cross is "for" everyone, just as Jesus' preaching either opens or hardens hearts.

    Blessings to you.

    Mike Taylor

  2. Forgive me, guys, but I just don’t see what you’re seeing in John that would support a two-stage theory whereby God draws, but we’re free to come or not come. Where in John do we find God drawing someone, but that someone not coming?

    But I do see all kinds of stuff along the following lines: All that God draws come to Jesus (cf, John 6:37), and there is no one who is drawn who does not also come to Jesus. And those who are drawn are identical to those who are raised on the last day (John 6:44).

    Now think it through backwards. Who are those whom God raises on the last day? (Those who are saved.) And if these are the same as those who are drawn, then it follows that those who are drawn are saved. It therefore is not surprising that those whom God draws necessarily come to Jesus (else they cannot be numbered among those who are raised on the last day, right?). So while I can accept that there is a distinction between drawing and coming, I don’t see these as two “stages.” When God draws, people come. John sets this up as cause and effect. But you Arminian folks seem to be reading this as invite (draw) and accept or reject the invitation (come, or don’t come). Respectfully, I think you’re reading this into John. I would challenge you, however, to find it in John.

    As for the comments about “context,” by all means give us the context. Just so long as the argument doesn’t reduce to, “I know the text says ‘not by the will of man,’ and it may appear as if Calvinists have a case, but once I give you the full context, you’ll see it really is ‘by the will of man’ after all.” That’s my main fear.

    1. michael,
      if ur referring to lorenzo’s comment, i do not believe that it represents what Jesus says in John 6. it is a biblical teaching, but not the teaching of John 6:37,44&65.

      As for context, this is only the first post covering the big picture of John. By the last post the context & the meaning of the verses in questions will be very clear. Im not saying u will agree wth the interpretation, im certain that u wont. nevertheless i believe it will become clear for those who are not already 100% committed to, & invested in, a particular theological interpretation.

      1. >>By the last post the context & the meaning of the verses in questions will be very clear. Im not saying u will agree wth the interpretation, im certain that u wont. nevertheless i believe it will become clear for those who are not already 100% committed to, & invested in, a particular theological interpretation.<<

        I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. So does this mean that you're theoretically open to Calvinism? Or do you include yourself among those who are "already 100% committed to & invested in a particular theological interpretation?" Or does that last caveat only apply to those with whom you disagree? (Just curious.)

      2. haha! yes, i also have strong theological commitments that tempt me into ignoring verses that seemingly contradict those commitment. I try to stay aware of that tendancy. & have often laughed at myself when i find i have been blinded to certain passages for so long. that happened to me tonight as i read jn14:21, 14:23,15:10. i had already noticed jn16:27 but never really faced up to the implications of them.
        but i am theoretically open to calvinism if i became convinced that Scripture taught it. but that theoretical window has grown pretty small as i have studied the contexts of the normal calvinist verses & found them clearly contradicting calvinism as in jn6&rom9&eph1 or at least a strained interpretation as in acts13:48.
        im am pretty certain that my theological convictions are not hindering me from eventually getting to an objective interpretation simply because i keep being shocked by scripture & changing my views;)

    2. Good comments Mike and worthy of consideration. For now let me just throw John 12:32 in the mix where Jesus says that if He is lifted up (referring to the cross). He will draw all men to Him. In this verse as in a number of other verses referring to God loving all, desiring all to be saved and providing Jesus as the ransom/propitiation/Savior and tasting death for all, I take all in the most plain and straightforward meaning of the word, as there is nothing in these texts to qualify and reduce it.

      Not avoiding the points you made but just need to examine them and the Scriptures.



      1. Lorenzo,

        I’m not sure that John 12:32 is as universal as I think you may be assuming. We certainly can’t start with the assumption that “all men” always and everywhere means “all people without exception.” The broader context suggest that John has “all men” as in both Jews and “Greeks” in mind (cf, 12:20-26). So a choice must be made. We can absolutize “all men” in this passage and then interpret “draw” in some weak sense such as “invite” or “make salvation possible.” Or, we can look at how the word “draw” is used in other contexts in John, study the semantic range of the word (which usually has the strong sense of dragging or pulling something against its natural tendency), and then ask ourselves if John more likely intends his reader to see this sort of “drawing” as a general invitation or an efficacious activity on the part of the one who draws.

        If we take draw in its strong sense, then this forces one of two possibilities: either universal salvation (on the reading that “all men” must mean all men without exception) or particular redemption (on the reading that “all men” means all men without distinction, such as the Greeks mentioned in the previous pericope.

        If we’re still undecided, we can look at all the other language of particularity in John’s Gospel. Here I have in mind passages such as John 17:2 “…since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.”

        When I read that I’m drawn to the words “all flesh” (a parallel concept to “all men”) over which Jesus has authority, out of which some have been given Jesus for the purpose of giving them eternal life. The passage does not say “all flesh” have been given to Jesus; rather it says Jesus has authority over all flesh, some of whom he gives eternal life. This, to me anyway, seems to shed light on how we ought to understand the “all men” of John 12:32.

      2. I agree all men in jn12:32 means “all nations” or “both jews & gentiles”. but then again i have been accuded of reading the context into the text;) my post makes it clear that the point of john was to show that not only jews but also gentiles were included in God’s plan.
        having said that jn11:49-51 makes it clear jesus died for the “whole nation” & acts 3:26&5:31 shows that repentance was “given” to all in israel. So if the jewish nation includes all individual israelites, then the “all men” & the “whole world” of Johns Gospel wud mean all isrealites & all gentiles. acts 11:18 bears this out by saying god has also granted repentance to gentiles as he had done to the jews.
        As for Jesus drawing all nations to himself, i am not totally convincedi understand in what sense it is meant. it is certain jesus draws all men thru the gospel & the spirit, but im not sure if that is the reference. or if he is just saying that being lifted up (like the serpant jn3:15) is a sign post that he is the way to God. the context seems to point to this interpretation. until im convinced by this i stick wth the common view that it is something similar to john 6:44. i will use that interpretation in my following posts,but i try not to make too much of it. more just mention it to show that Jesus has more than the Jews in mind.

      3. another simple note.to say “all men” means “both jews & gentiles” is much different than saying it means “some jews & some gentiles”. the latter is evidence of theological commitment instead of commitment to the context of john’s Goslel. Acts3:26,5:31,john11:49-52&acts11:18.
        Jesus clearly died for “All Jews” (as the type of the yearly atonement sacrifice & jn11:49-52 show) & came wth the purpose of giving repentance & forgiveness to all israelites.that they did not all benefit from this is clear and understandable because their are conditions to be met. but since the jews means “all jews”, then including gentiles in “all men”(both jews & gentiles) clearly means “all individual gentiles”. so we are back to the orthodix & ancient interlretation of john 3:16, God so loved the whole world, both jews & gentiles, including each individual in those groups.
        to say God loves the Church is to say he loves all the individuals in the church. as even Calvinists will argue when faced with those who defend a corporate election interpretation of ephesians chalter 1. so by saying God loves both Jews & Gentiles, or that he draws both Jews & Gentiles, obviously includes all the individuals represented by those larger groups.

    3. As a starter for 10 my initial thoughts/understanding are this:

      John 6:37 is referring to all those who God the Father has given/entrusted to Jesus. These are those who believe – those who actually respond to God’s drawing and come to Him.

      John 6:44 tells us that for anyone to come to Jesus, God has to first draw Him. It does not say anything about the coming being automatic, simply that God has to take the initiative and do something first to enable men to come. This is what many Arminians would refer to as “prevenient” (as opposed to irresistible) grace.

      Those who Jesus will raise up on the last day are those who actually come, not all those who are drawn. I believe the structure of the verse makes this clear. To praphrase:

      “No-one is able to come to me, unless the Father first draws/enables Him to do so. Those who come, I will raise up on the last day”.

      I hope I made the difference in understanding of these verses clear.

      1. Hi Lorenzo,

        I wouldn’t use the word “automatic,” as that suggests that God does not use any means whatsoever in the process of drawing us. But if we’re right about the meaning of the word “draw,” then the cause (God’s drawing) will produce the intended effect (our coming) without fail–and so in that sense–it would be “automatic” in the loose sense of that word.

        What you’re doing–it seems to me–is reading the idea of “coming” not as an effect of God’s efficacious drawing, but rather as a further condition that has to be fulfilled. On your reading, it’s not enough to draw. We also have to come.

        But I think you’re reading this idea into John. The text does not say “all who are draw *and come* will be raised on the last day.” rather it is all who are drawn. The more natural inference to be drawn (no pun intended) is that God’s drawing results in our coming.

        Go back to John 1:13 where John programs this very theme into the prologue. Notice the language on the negative side of the ledger: “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man.” Contrast that to what is on the positive side: “but the will of God.”

        Your reading of the text forces John into contradiction. You’re reading this as if it were both the will of man(our coming) and the will of God (His drawing).

        Speaking personally, I used to hold your view (when I was a Roman Catholic). I think the view I hold now is far more consistent with the Gospel of John as a whole and the actual meaning of the Greek words being used. What I did not realize at the time was that it was the Roman system (remarkably similar to Arminianism on this score) that was forcing me to read much of scripture in way that forced authors into self-contradiction.

        But by all means, go with what makes most sense to you.

        Mike Taylor

  3. I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion but you certainly take the time to at least try to explain your reasoning…so much so that I was glad to retweet your tweet linking to this article!

  4. Hello pastor,

    I’ll be curious to see how/if added historical “context” can blunt the force of the passages that you admit (to your credit) give at least a prima facie plausibility to the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace. So far, I don’t see anything in your first post that even comes close to your objective. My real worry here is that you may be guilty of obfuscation. Why am I worried about this possibility? Experience. The attempt to get around the clear teaching of scripture by means of appeals to a broader “context” is usually the equivalent of saying, “Look at the forrest, not the tree.” But in fact if the issue concerns a particular tree within that forrest, the last thing you want to do is to take your focus off of that tree, lest you can’t find it again in the midst of the larger forrest. (I really hope you’re not doing this, though I suspect you may be.)

    Also, out of curiosity, how much of a redactional-critical approach are you taking with John? It sounds like you may be reading John has having far more to do with the late first-century Church’s quarrel with “the Synagogue across the street” (a la Krister Stendahl’s reading of Matthew), than with what actually took place in Jesus’ day. If that’s the case, I would urge you to proceed with extreme caution!

    Now having said that, there’s another context to consider–and that is the Gospel of John itself. Don’t forget his prologue in which he sets forth some of the major themes he will develop. John 1:13, for example, makes it pretty clear that being born again is determined by the will of God and not by the will of man. There is no way to read such a passage synergistically without doing violence both to the Greek and to logic. Everything we read in John about conversion is consistent with what he tells us in the prologue. So when, for example, Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that they “cannot” bear to hear his word, (8:43) and that the reason they do not hear his word is because they are not “of God” (8:47), we Calvinists see remarkable continuity with what John has already told us in the prologue. The language of “cannot” is very powerful in the Greek. It states an inability or lack of power to do something and not simply an unwillingness on the part of the Jewish leadership. When we couple that with their not being “of God,” we have a very logical explanation for their unbelief. They do not believe, because they cannot believe. And they cannot believe because they are not “of God. And they cannot be “of God” unless it is God’s will to draw them to Jesus. Is this not what the prologue leads us to expect?: ” who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). In other words, no one can come to Jesus unless the Father first draws him. The work of God in the unregenerate soul is the necessary precondition for belief in/coming to Jesus. That’s the teaching of John. But in Arminian Bizarro world, it seems to me that the cart really is before the horse. God only draws those whom he knows will believe in him–a presupposition imposed on the text, not exegeted from it, and needless to say, one that is in hopeless contradiction to what the text actually says, “nor the will of man.”

    Five Point blessings to you,

    Mike Taylor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s