You mention John 6:45 which states ""Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.""

I think it is important to point out here a few things.  First, the phrase "come to me" must be understood as "believe in me" or "have faith in me" or however you would like to word it.  The reason is because of verse 35:

Joh 6:35  Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

So "come to me" and "believe in me" are roughly synonymous, would you agree? The point is, if you "come to Jesus", you will never thirst or hunger. That is, to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation.

The second thing I would like to draw attention to is this - the "everyone" mentioned in this verse has a qualifier:  they "listen to the Father and learn from Him and come to me (Jesus)".  So every single person that listens to the Father and learns from him - whatever that means - inevitably comes to Jesus. (by comes to Jesus, it is meant "to believe in me with saving faith, as was established)

What is interesting is not one verse earlier Christ emphatically states that nobody has the innate ability to come to Jesus, but instead a person requires Divine assistance to do so:

"Joh 6:44  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

So nobody has the innate ability to put their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.  That is, if you still agree that "come to me" and "believe in me" are synonymous based on v35.

What's further interesting is that a few verses earlier, Christ tells us exactly who will come to him: All that the Father gives to Him.

Joh 6:37  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

In other words, "All that the Father gives to the Son will savingly believe in the Son".

From this small passage can't we conclude a few things?

1) Nobody can come to Jesus with their own power.
2) Everyone that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son (v37)
3) Those that "listen to the Father and learn from him" will come to the Son (v45)
4) Therefore, the people from v37 are the same people as the ones described in v45 - they are both described as "they come to me" (Jesus)
5) Nobody at all would be saved if the Father had not given any to the Son, since #1 is true.

In short, when Jesus spoke verse 45, he had already established something prior: He had established that people come to the Son as a result of the Father giving them to the Son:

"All that the Father gives me will come to me.." (v37).  

So the people in verse 45 who "listen and learn from the Father" cannot be any other than those described by verse 37.  In conclusion, the ones in v45 who "listen and learn from the Father" do so because they were "Given from the Father to the Son" (v37)

Next, I would challenge your use of John 12:32.  That is a completely different context, situation, and chapter.  You cannot possibly tell me that what Jesus meant by 12:32 was a continuation of his lesson in chapter 6.  What was said in 12:32 has absolutely nothing to do with chapter 6.

"I will draw all men to me".  Take note of what happened just a few verses earlier. Some Greeks were interested in meeting Jesus.  Jesus was made aware of this and said "The hour has come for me to be glorified".  By "all men" Jesus meant nothing more than "Jews and Greeks", not "100% of every single person that ever lived or will live".  

Why? Because 6 chapters earlier, Christ equates being drawn with being raised up.  
"All the Father gives me will come to me (v37)...
"and this is the Father's will, that of all that He has given to me, I will lose nothing, but will raise it up at the last day. (v39)

Every person given From the Father to the Son 1) Comes to the Son, and 2) Christ loses none of them, and 3) they are raised up at the last day.

The word "draw" means to drag, not to "entice" or "woo" or "attract". Look it up in the Greek.  It is the same word used to draw water from a well.  It is the same word used to drag people into courts.  If you are drawn, you will most assuredly come to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Further, it clear from John 6 that not all men are given to the Son. Why? Because not all men come to the Son. And he said "All the Father gives me will come to me".  The Jews just couldn't' believe this.  Jesus was telling them, "you need to believe, you need to believe in me", and they didn't. So Jesus told them in the negative, why they didn't believe. "All the Father gives me will come to me".  In other words, "the reason you don't come to me is because the Father didn't give you to me. "

(Though Christ does affirm in the positive why some people do not believe inn him in John 10:26 - because they are not his sheep "whom the Father gave to the Son" (10:29))

The Jews keep grumbling, and finally Christ says in v64: "But some of you do not believe...THIS IS WHY I TOLD YOU that nobody can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father"

Saying "This is why I told you" points us back to v44 which states "Nobody can come unless they are drawn".  So Christ equates being drawn with the fact that a person, if drawn, will most assuredly believe in him.  Why else would he say "This is why I told you...".  This is why I told you earlier that nobody can come to me unless the Father draws them.  Some of you don't believe in me, and this is why.  Because you weren't' drawn.  You weren't given to me from the Father.

Jesus is explaining precisely why (not only here, but in John 10:26) why some people do not believe in Him, and why some people do.  It is not because some are smarter than others more spiritual, or more righteous and therefore more willing to repent of sins and submit to God.  If a man believes in Jesus it is the direct result of God's grace.  There is no room to boast in salvation.

Hello there, I have a few quotes from some of the early Christians who would of heard some of the 12 Apostles, or those who knew them personally, so I think their testimoney should carry a lot of weight concerning what Christ, Paul, or the twelve would of meant in their saying's. Let's see if their understanding of man's inability to obey God, is the same as your' meaning! Let me also say that most of these people give their lives for the Gospels sake, or better still, their Saviours sake. Justin Martyr said, dialogue cxii; "God, wishing men and Angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some Angels and men shall certianly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably(wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God".

 Irenaeus, against heresies xxxvii..."this expression,'how often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou would not', set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man free (agent) from the beginning, posessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntary, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will(toward us) is present with him continually. And in man as well as Angels, he has placed the power of choice(for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yeilded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves..."

 4.  ..." If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the Apostle, and much more the Lord himself, to give councsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which things is done by means of obedience to God".

 Athenagoras, embassy for Christians xxiv..."Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice(for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters intrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the Angels".

 Clement of Rome,recognitions of Clement, 111.23.v.6.1x.30.  2 FOR NO OTHER REASON DOES GOD PUNISH THE SINNER EITHER IN THE PRESENT OR FUTURE WORLD, EXCEPT BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT THE SINNER WAS ABLE TO CONQUER BUT NEGLECTED TO DO SO".

 Ignatius,disciple of John,..."if anyone is truely religous, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice".to magnesians chap 5 (long version)

 Arnobius, against the heathen:64..."I reply; does he not free all alike who invites all alike?Or does he thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to him? To all, he says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking..."

  65.   " Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerfull, merciful, willing to save us, let him change our disposition, and compel us to trust in his promises. This, then is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the supreme God, but a childish and vain strife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unworthy, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to recieve, and shrink from.."

 The writings from early believers, who were greatly respected in the Church, who clearly teach that every man has a free will is countless. Why would they 'ALL' believe this if Paul, or Christ, meant the opposite in their teachings? Maybe they all were on a coffee break when mans total inability was being expounded, or maybe it even Slipped Pauls mind when he 'taught the whole will of God', Acts 20v27? It truely amazes me that this is over looked by Calvinist's. If mans total inability was Church orthodoxy, why do the leaders, whom knew the 12, or those close to them, teach otherwise....it cant be any clearer people, and it's because they were taught otherwise!
 Man is rebellious because he chooses to be. Those ' in the flesh', simply means those who walk after evil, rebellious desires...voluntarily. We dont need a so called depraved nature to sin, look at Adam and eve!. Perfect, made in God's own image, stated by God that it was very good, yet they messed it up big time! Do you know why Christians today struggle so much with their sins, and cry to God about it so much? Because it's all that they have been told they can do...sin! " Youre nature is evil, wicked, you can only sin, dont take those statements seriously about go and sin no more, or be perfect as I am perfect, etc etc etc etc", we have been duped by Satan's lies. When you read the early church beliefs, then statements like," be ye holy, as I am holy", you get a bit of hope in your heart that God didnt create a monster. Gods image in man was not destoyed as such after the fall, Gen 9v6, James 3v9, it was only taken captive! Read Isa 61
   "THE SPIRIT OF THE lORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE THE lORD HAS ANNOINTED ME, TO PREACH GOOD TIDINGS TO THE POOR, HE HAS SENT ME TO HEAL THE BROKEN HEARTED, TO PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO THE PRISONERS, AND THE OPENING OF THE PRISON TO THOSE THAT ARE BOUND".
 It's all about setting us free, and now we are free, we can do the things Jesus said we can do. Having a sinfull nature is simply yeilding to wicked ways, as is seen in Eph 2. Look at what the people were doing for Paul to of said they were by nature children of wrath. They followed the Spirit of the world, Satan! Read and see, it was their decissions which made them children of wrath. In many cases nature simply means what you yield to, and not just what you are! When this truth is grasped in your Spirit, you will be on the road to freedom. It is written," God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes", ecc 7v29. Nite nite people.   Marcus

That is literally impossible, since it is this very passage (among others) that shaped my theology.  Remember I used to be a Semi-Pelagian (without even knowing it).  If what you say is true, then as a Semi-Pelagian, I was reading the passage based on my preconceived theology.  The passage shaped what I believe Jimmy. That's why I believe what I believe.   So it is impossible to say that my beliefs are forcing me to read it a certain way, ignoring any other interpretation.  Do you honestly think I affirmed the reformed understanding of sotieriology before I had ever read the Bible? It's not as if I affirmed this and then came to the scriptures to look for Bible verses that supported it.  No, it's the Bible itself that taught me this.


No.  Unbelief is not caused by any positive work on God's part.  Unbelief is the natural state of all people.  Aren't all people unbelievers at some point before they are believers?  God doesn't have to do anything to "get me" to be an unbeliever - I was already one because I'm a sinner.  If anyone becomes a believer, it is because of God's grace. So God gets credit for when a sinner repents, but it is the sinner's fault for not repenting, because he has the natural desire to not do so, as he is a fallen creature.

Your argument is similar to a father with a child. The child is disobeying because "the father won't let him obey".  How absurd! The child is disobeying of his own initiative.  The father isn't making him disobey.

That said, please offer an exegesis of John 6 Jimmy.  Simply asserting something is incorrect is far different than proving it.  Take up the task of showing the correct interpretation.  Don't you desire to rescue us poor deceived Christians from our false theology?

skala, who do you think created the natural state of man?  God created the natural state of man - no one else. So if the natural state of man is that he can not respond positively to any offer by God, then it is God who causes that.


That is more of the wrong thinking coming out of the false concept of original sin, total depravity, total inability.  Whatever you call it, if it is a correct description of mankind, then it is God who caused that condition to exist.  There is no other creative source for it.


Yes, of course.  Either response, repent or not repent, it is the sinner who does it.  The opportunity to accept or reject is indeed because of God's grace.

As a side note, man is a fallen creature because he sinned, not because of anyone else's sin, including Adam.  He was not created as a fallen creature.


But you, yourself, speak of that same child as being totally incapable of obeying his father. 


skala, I have, on many occasions, offered up the correct interpretation.  I have pointed out that v.45 describes precisely how God draws.  But you aren't looking for what I think is correct.  And to be honest, I don't have any disillusions about your being rescued from your false theology.  My main point in any interchange with you is just so that readers of the forum, most who do not post, aren't left with the idea that your theology is without objection.

But if you are really interested in the "correct interpretation", all you have to do is to put aside the five petals of the Calvinist TULIP and read the Bible from that perspective.  In fact all you need do is to reject the incorrect concept of total depravity.  Once you have dismissed that false doctrine, then the rest of TULIP falls as well and you are well on your way to the "correct interpretation".  With your abilities, you wouldn't really need all that much help.

You would probably need to augment your library with something besides books based upon the reformed teachings.

I would just like to point out that still, nobody has successfully answered any of the 4 questions from a non-reformed perspective :)

No comment on the post above?

1Co 15:21  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23  But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.