I’ve been a little busy lately, but I wanted to share some food for thought with some folks.
Brian Bosse has written on his blog A Logical Analysis of John 6:44. He also provides a link to the .pdf file of his paper which is here. It’s a very interesting and maybe a somewhat difficult read.
He concludes:
given the Arminian understanding of universal atonement one is left with Universalism, while the Calvinistic understanding of a limited atonement is consistent.
Enjoy!
Mark
in Arminianism,calvinism,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman by day working to support his family while attending seminary in the off hours as he prepares for vocational ministry.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Amen!
Also, given the Arminians view of omniscience – which is typically biblical you would have to say God the Father poured out unnecessary wrath on His Son knowingly.
Oh, by the way, Dr. Hargrave was asked to speak on Calvinism at Halifax Baptist Association Pastor Conference. You can watch it at http://www.graceworx.com Click on Hargrave at HBA. It’s a must watch!
Page 14 gives us:
Premise 1: [If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him], and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
Premise 2: All the elect are able to come to Me. (Calvinist Position)
Conclusion: The Father draws all the elect, and I (Jesus) will raise all the elect up on the last day.
********
The way, for the Arminian, to escape the conclusion is by suggesting that the syllogism (that is compatible with Calvinism) IS compatible with Arminianism, too.
The Arminian certainly agrees with P1.
The Arminian also agrees with P2: Of course, all the elect are able to come to Christ; they ARE THE ELECT for crying out loud! But it may or may not be the case according to P2 that the non-elect are able to come; so, it does not follow, necessarily, that the non-elect are not able to come.
The conclusion is not a problem for the Arminian either. Of course, the Father draws all the elect AND Jesus will resurrect the elect. Notice the significance of the conjunctive “and.” The elect are drawn AND will be resurrected (unto eternal life with God); not only are the elect drawn, they will ALSO be resurrected. However, from merely such a statement, we cannot tell whether or not the non-elect are “drawn AND will be resurrected.” The statement only makes a positive claim, namely, that the elect are drawn and will be resurrected; we don’t know if the non-elect, too, are “drawn and will be resurrected.” It may be that the non-elect, too, are “drawn and will be resurrected” (Universalism). We just don’t know from reading the conclusion.
P.S. –
***On the significance of the conjunctive “and.”
The conclusion does not say, “The Father draws all the elect.” It says, “The Father draws all the elect, AND I (Jesus) will raise all the elect up on the last day.” According to the conclusion, what shows that one is elect is not that he is merely drawn (since all men, elect and non-elect, according to Arminianism are drawn); it is that the elect is BOTH drawn AND will be resurrected. This is not incompatible with Arminianism, by no means.
***Another flaw seems to be that the writer, Bosse, begs the question in favor of Calvanism in two ways.
1. P2 – “All the elect are able to come to Me” – does not follow from P1 (John 6:44). The antecedent of P1, namely, “If he is able to come to Me,” does not necessarily yield P2. It is because nothing is said in P1 that “he” (in the antecedent) represents the elect. Such is merely an assumption that is arbitrarily put on (without establishing it) by Bosse. In order to show that the “he” in the antecedent represents the elect, Bosse must inductively argue from other parts of Scripture. But can he?
2. Being “elect” means that one is drawn by the Father AND does come (not just ABLE to come) to Christ – Arminians and Calvinists alike agree. But this, too, is not established in the argument – the very thing that Bosse accuses the Arminian to be guilty of. Remember: Bosse states that ‘he’ refers to either (1) the one drawn or (2) the one ABLE to come; there is no referent for the one who actually DOES come. Yet in P2 Bosse implicitly (perhaps unbeknownst to himself) inserts this idea, by adding the words “the elect” (the ones who are drawn and do NECESSARILY come to Christ, according to Calvinism).
Hello Mark,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to Aaron Shelenberger’s comments dated 3/18/2008 concerning my article on John 6:44. (Note: the links you provided in your post are no longer good. Here is where the article can be found: http://www.christianlogic.com/brianbosse/2007/a-logical-analysis-of-john-644/.)
Allow me to give a very brief abstract of the paper to establish context. Essentially, I did a grammatical/syntaxical analysis of John 6:44. Based on the analysis, I concluded that the logical structure of John 6:44 was as follows:
John 6:44 – [If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to Me,] and I will raise him up on the last day.
The brackets indicate that the consequent of the conditional only includes “he is not able to come to Me.” As such, “and I will raise him up on the last day” is not part of the conditional statement. I then applied this to the following two assumptions:
Arminian: God draws all people, and as a result all people are able to come but all do not come.
Calvinist: God draws only the elect, and as a result the elect are able to come and necessarily do come.
The conclusion reached is that given the traditional Arminian position stated above Universalism is the result – contradicting the position that “all do not come”; whereas, given the Calvinist assumptions, Calvinism remains intact.
Aaron Shelenberger argues “The statement (‘The Father draws all the elect, and I (Jesus) will raise all the elect up on the last day’) only makes a positive claim, namely, that the elect are drawn and will be resurrected; we don’t know if the non-elect, too, are ‘drawn and will be resurrected.’ It may be that the non-elect, too, are ‘drawn and will be resurrected’ (Universalism). We just don’t know from reading the conclusion.”
I agree, but this is what my paper concluded. Here is the last paragraph of my paper…
“Based on the aforementioned analysis, one cannot definitively declare that Calvinism is correct. Rather, one can only say that Calvinism is consistent with John 6:44. The traditional Arminian position, however, has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with the teaching of John 6:44. When the traditional Arminian position is applied to the verse Universalism is the result. The debate is no longer between the Arminian and the Calvinist, but rather between the Calvinist and the Universalist.”
As such, I am not sure what Aaron’s point is. In the end, my paper refutes the majority position found in Arminiansm, namely, that all men are drawn and are able to come, but not all men will come.
Now, I will move onto Aaron’s post script. He states, “Another flaw seems to be that the writer, Bosse, begs the question in favor of Calvanism in two ways.”
He refers to “another flaw.” It does not seem that he has yet pointed out a first flaw in the paper. Well, let’s see how Aaron thinks I have “begged the question.” He goes on to say, “1. P2 – ‘All the elect are able to come to Me’ – does not follow from P1 (John 6:44). The antecedent of P1, namely, ‘If he is able to come to Me,’ does not necessarily yield P2.”
I agree with him that P1 does not necessarily imply P2. I made this very point in the last paragraph on page 12. P2 is simply the Calvinist assumption. I think Aaron missed this completely. I am not sure if he even realizes that there was another syllogism with its own P2 based on Arminian assumptions. It is found on page 13.
We press on. Aaron next states, “Being “elect” means that one is drawn by the Father AND does come (not just ABLE to come) to Christ – Arminians and Calvinists alike agree. But this, too, is not established in the argument – the very thing that Bosse accuses the Arminian to be guilty of.”
I did not accuse the Arminians of anything. All I proved was that given certain main stream Arminian assumptions, Universalism is the result. I suggest Aaron should go back and re-read section 3 of my paper (or the whole paper for that matter). He seems to have missed the whole point of the argument.
Sincerely,
Brian
The conclusion of Bosse’s argument (page 15) reads:
“Based on the aforementioned analysis, one cannot definitively declare that Calvinism is correct. Rather, one can only say that Calvinism is consistent with John 6:44. The traditional Arminian position, however, has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with the teaching of John 6:44. When the traditional Arminian position is applied to the verse universalism is the result. The debate is no longer between the Arminian and the Calvinist, but rather between the Calvinist and the universalist.”
I then responded with:
“The way, for the Arminian, to escape the conclusion is by suggesting that the syllogism (that is compatible with Calvinism) IS compatible with Arminianism, too.”
The syllogism that is compatible with Calvinism (which is found on page 14 of Bosse’s paper) is as follows:
Premise 1: [If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him], and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
Premise 2: All the elect are able to come to Me. (Calvinist Position)
Conclusion: The Father draws all the elect, and I (Jesus) will raise all the elect up on the last day.
Having re-written the above argument, I suggested that each part of the syllogism is compatible with Arminianism. Yes, I can see how the traditional Arminian argument would lead to universalism; that is why I am offering a modified version in order to escape universalism, that is, by suggesting that the Calvinist argument IS compatible with Arminianism. The syllogism Bosse puts together is adopted in order to, at least, avoid universalism. Hope this clarifies my point.
However, there is one thing that needs to be noticed as to the difference between the Calvinistic argument (as put forth in the above syllogism) and the traditional argument (on page 13), namely,
P1 – [If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him], and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
P2 – He is able to come to Me. (Arminian Position)
C – The Father drew him, and I (Jesus) will raise him up on the last day.
Here’s the difference:
The former begs the question (i.e., P2 does not follow P1), which Bosse himself admits; he writes, ‘P2 is simply the Calvinist assumption’). Whereas the latter does not, since P2 follows from P1, and the conclusion follows from the premises.
So, at the expense of begging the question in favor of Calvinism, Calvinism remains in the debate with Universalism, while traditional Arminianism drops out of the game (despite the fact that its argument is solid and intact, only that it leads to Universalism). Yes? But maybe there’s something I’m missing here. So, please help.
Blessings!
Aaron
This exchange is also found in:
http://hereiblog.com/2008/02/16/calvinism-arminianism-and-john-644/
oops! the site is:
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/01/logic_and_john_644.php
CORRECTION ON THIS ITEM ONLY:
Here’s the difference:
The former begs the question (i.e., P2 does not follow P1), which Bosse himself admits; he writes, ‘P2 is simply the Calvinist assumption’). Whereas the latter does not, since P2 follows from P1, and the conclusion follows from the premises.
CORRECTED AS:
Here’s the difference:
The former begs the question (i.e., P1 does not yield P2), which Bosse himself admits; he writes, ‘P2 is simply the Calvinist assumption’). Whereas the latter does not, since P1 yields P2, and the conclusion follows from the premises.
Hello Aaron,
I still am unclear as to what you think is wrong with my paper. Although, I do appreciate you taking an interest in it. You state, “The way, for the Arminian, to escape the conclusion is by suggesting that the syllogism (that is compatible with Calvinism) IS compatible with Arminianism, too.”
The form of Arminianism that this paper is aiming at holds these assumptions:
(1) All people are able to come.
(2) Not all people do come.
My paper proves that the result of assumption 1 when applied to John 6:44 is Universalism – a narrow (non-traditional) form of Arminianism. In other words, the Arminian who holds to 1 and 2 above does not escape my conclusion. His position is found to be inconsistent. Here is the syllogism used to establish this:
Premise 1: If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him], and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
Premise 2: All men are able to come to Me. (Arminian Assumption 1)
Conclusion: The Father draws all men, and Jesus raises all men on the last day.
Notice, premise 1 is what John 6:44 teaches, and premise 2 is the Arminian assumption 1. The conclusion that necessarily follows from John 6:44 given the Arminian assumption 1 is Universalism, which contradicts assumption 2. The Arminian does not escape. Now, if you disagree with this conclusion, then you have one of two ways to argue: (a) one of the premises is false; or (2) the argument form is invalid.
You do feel the force of the argument when you say, “Yes, I can see how the traditional Arminian argument would lead to universalism; that is why I am offering a modified version in order to escape universalism, that is, by suggesting that the Calvinist argument IS compatible with Arminianism.”
The problem with this is that Universalism is still the result. Even you said this in your previous post when you said, “It may be that the non-elect, too, are ‘drawn and will be resurrected” (Universalism). We just don’t know from reading the conclusion.”
As such, I am not sure what your point is. If your point is that the Arminianin position as stated above does not lead to Universalism given John 6:44, then you have contradicted yourself not to mention that you have yet to show us how this is the case.
Also, you are mistaken in your analysis of the two syllogisms presented. You state that in the Calvinist syllogism P2 does not follow from P1. In this you are correct. P2 is simply the Calvinist assumption. However, you state that P2 does follow from P1 in the Arminian syllogism! This is flat out wrong. P2 is simply the Arminian assumption. It does not follow from P1 anymore than that Calvinist assumption follows from P1. I would be interested in seeing why you think the P2 in the Arminian syllogism follows from P1. The following illustration might be applicable and helpful:
Premise 1: If anyone runs a 100 meters in under 9.90 seconds in the Olympics they will likely win gold.
Premise 2: All men will can run a 100 meters in under 9.90 seconds.
Do you think premise 2 follows from premise 1? If so, why? If not, then why does Premise 2 follow Premise 1 in the Arminian assumption?
Sincerely,
Brian
Hello there!
Thank you, Brian, for taking the time to respond. I’m learning some things from reading your paper and from our exchange.
The proposition found in John 6:44, namely, “No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day,” can be converted to: “All are not able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them, and I will raise them up on the last day.” This can further be converted to “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them, and I will raise them up on the last day” – a statement of truth from Christ.
So, my reason for suggesting P2 follows from P1 is because I have this idea that P2 is actually derived from the TRUTH of John 6:44, namely, “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them, and I will raise them up on the last day.”
Richard Coords presents an excellent summary rebuttal of this presuppositioned”analysis” on his website and offers a proper contextual understanding of the passage as well as it’s context, verses 35 through 40. The notion most Christians are forced to a universalist ground for rejecting the Calvinist application of 6:44 is little more than a polemic and premised rhetoric.
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_37.html
Blessings in Christ
A.M. Mallett
Hello Aaron,
It is my pleasure to try and clarify these things. I appreciate the spirit in which you are doing this. You stated, “The proposition found in John 6:44, namely, ‘No one is able to come to Me, unless the Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day,’ can be converted to: ‘All are not able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them, and I will raise them up on the last day.’ This can further be converted to ‘All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them, and I will raise them up on the last day’ – a statement of truth from Christ.”
Section one of my paper developed from the Greek text the following translation:
Translation: (A) No one is able to come to Me (B) if not the Father – the One having sent Me – draws him, (C) and I will raise him up on the last day.
Section two argues that the following translation is the proper logical structure of the text (I purposefully left out the phrase “the One having sent Me”):
John 6:44 – [If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to Me], and I will raise him up on the last day.
Technically, this text is the conjunction of two propositions – one of which is an implication (conditional statement). The conditional statement is “If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to Me” and the other proposition is “I will raise him up on the last day.” All of this was argued for and supported in my section two.
With that said, you present the following: “All are not able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them.” I really do not have an issue with this. However, you go on to say that this can be converted to “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them.” From a logically point of view this is false. Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to use an example. Consider the following…
(A) All the students are not able to see the blackboard unless the teacher moves off to the side.
This cannot be converted to the following:
(B) All the students are able to see the blackboard because the teacher moved off to the side.
The reason for this is that A can be true when B is false. Consider the case when the teacher decides not to move at all. A is still true, but B is false. As such, you are mistaken to think that John 6:44 can be converted to “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them.”
With that said, your statement “…a statement of truth from Christ…” seems to indicate that you are looking to something outside of the text to support the idea that “All men (universal) are drawn and are able to come.” Let’s apply this assumption to John 6:44.
John 6:44 – [If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to Me], and I will raise him up on the last day.
Aaron’s Position: All are drawn and able to come.
The conditional statement in John 6:44 is equivalent to the following statement via the logical law of contraposition:
John 6:44 (revised) – If he is able to come to Me, then the Father does draw him, and I will raise him up on the last day.
If it is your position that the ‘he’ in John 6:44 is every human being (the assumption that all are able to come), then Universalism is the result. There is no way around this. Also, notice that it does no good to say that the ‘he’ refers to only those that actually do come. This is not what John 6:44 says. John 6:44 teaches that those who are able to come are the ones that are raised. There is no further qualification. As such, you either end up with Universalism or you must limit the class of those who are able to come.
As far as A.M. Mallett’s post goes, the article he linked to was not a “…summary rebuttal of this presuppositioned analysis…” Rather, it was a rebuttal to something else. Neither my paper nor I was mentioned once. I suspect A.M. Mallett has not read my paper.
Sincerely,
Brian
Hello Brian!
1. My conversion of “All are not able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them”
to “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them”
is derived from the conditional “If all are able to come to Me, then [it is because] the Father drew them,”
which is similar to what you wrote “If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him,”
which also equals to the more universal “If all are able to come to Me, then the Father drew them.”
So, from “If all are able to come to Me, then [it is because] the Father drew them,” I dropped “If… then it is”
and arrived at “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them.”
It seems that your analogy of the students and the teacher is valid only if the Father did NOT draw the ones who are able to come to Christ. But the Father DID; note the past tense “drew” in “All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them.” I say this from the standpoint that Christ will resurrect all, at least, the drawn (past perfect tense) ones and the ones who are able to come (without arguing for Calvinism or Arminianism, of course).
2. Honestly, in my previous posts, I was ready to concede, though hesitantly, that the traditional Arminianism may inevitably lead to Universalism, considering the logical structure of John 6:44 you presented. But having re-evaluated the points you made in your paper, I think I can show you that the Arminian CAN escape Universalism, simply by mentioning the essential assumptions of Arminianism (just like the Calvinist makes his assumptions) in his argument.
The traditional Arminian argument can be put together as follows:
P1 – [If all are able to come to Christ, then the Father drew them], and Christ will resurrect them on the last day. (John 6:44)
P2 – All (including the elect) are able to come to Christ. (Arminianism)
C – The Father drew all (including the elect), and Christ will resurrect all the elect on the last day.
Thus, it seems to me that the Arminian can escape Universalism, by mentioning the essential assumptions that entail Arminianism.
Similarly, the Calvinist mentions his assumptions in his argument.
P1 – [If all are able to come to Christ, then the Father drew them], and Christ will resurrect them on the last day. (John 6:44)
P2 – All the elect are able to come to Christ. (Calvinism)
C – The Father drew all the elect, and Christ will resurrect all the elect on the last day.
If the Calvinist makes assumptions in his argument, what is stopping the Arminian from doing the same thing in his argument?
Blessings!
Aaron
Hello Aaron,
This will be my last response. You said, “My conversion of ‘All are not able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them’ to ‘All are able to come to Me, because the Father drew them’ is derived from the conditional ‘If all are able to come to Me, then [it is because] the Father drew them,’ which is similar to what you wrote ‘If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him,’ which also equals to the more universal ‘If all are able to come to Me, then the Father drew them.’”
Your derivations are not valid. The statement, “All are not able to come to Me, unless the Father draws them” does not entail “All are able to come to Me because the Father drew them.” So, whatever objection you are making is based in a logical fallacy. In the most precise manner, John 6:44a and b says, “If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to Me.” By the logical law of contraposition, this can be stated as, “If he is able to come to Me, then the Father does draw him.” Let A = “He is able to come to Me.” Let B = “The Father does draw him.” Then these two statements can be symbolized as follows…
(1) ~B –> ~A (‘~’ stands for ‘not’, and ‘–>’ stands for implication – an “if…, then… statement”)
(2) A –> B
Statement (2) can be stated this way, “All A is B.” However, this means that “All those able to come to me are those the Father draws.” It does not mean, “All are able to come to Me because the Father drew them.” There is no logical rule or law that allows for this derivation of yours, and it certainly does not follow from the Greek text.
You go on to say, “The traditional Arminian argument can be put together as follows:
P1 – [If all are able to come to Christ, then the Father drew them], and Christ will resurrect them on the last day. (John 6:44)
P2 – All (including the elect) are able to come to Christ. (Arminianism)
C – The Father drew all (including the elect), and Christ will resurrect all the elect on the last day.
Thus, it seems to me that the Arminian can escape Universalism, by mentioning the essential assumptions that entail Arminianism.”
Aaron, your conclusion is wrong. Given your syllogism, the proper conclusion should have been, “The Father drew all (including the elect), and Christ will resurrect ALL (including the elect).” This is Universalism. By the way, your P1 is not what John 6:44 says. I wish you the best in working this out.
Sincerely,
Brian
Brian,
You’ve shown patience and grace, sir. Thanks for the great exchange. I enjoyed it, and I learned a lot. One request: Could I contact you for comment on a paper (regarding John 6:44) I’m planning on writing?
You wrote:
In the most precise manner, John 6:44a and b says, “If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to come to Me.” By the logical law of contraposition, this can be stated as, “If he is able to come to Me, then the Father does draw him.” Let A = “He is able to come to Me.” Let B = “The Father does draw him.” Then these two statements can be symbolized as follows…
(1) ~B –> ~A (‘~’ stands for ‘not’, and ‘–>’ stands for implication – an “if…, then… statement”)
(2) A –> B
Statement (2) can be stated this way, “All A is B.” However, this means that “All those able to come to me are those the Father draws.” It does not mean, “All are able to come to Me because the Father drew them.” There is no logical rule or law that allows for this derivation of yours, and it certainly does not follow from the Greek text.
—> This seems to me a cause and effect issue.
Cause: The Father drew all.
Effect: All are able to come to Christ.
What caused all to come to Christ? The Father’s drawing. Thus, “All are able to come to Christ because the Father drew them.”
You wrote:
Aaron, your conclusion is wrong. Given your syllogism, the proper conclusion should have been, “The Father drew all (including the elect), and Christ will resurrect ALL (including the elect).” This is Universalism.
—->Right! It is Universalism ONLY if one removes the Arminian implicit assumption “Some [who are able to come] do come to Christ.” (This may have to be added as P3.) But when this is kept in mind, then the conclusion follows: “The Father drew all (including the elect), and Christ will resurrect the elect [some that do come] on the last day.” (The syllogism I offered may be defective and requires more adjustment, but the real argument for Arminianism remains intact and thus escapes Universalism.) So, I ask again:
If the Calvinist makes assumptions in his argument, what is stopping the Arminian from doing the same thing in his argument?
You wrote:
By the way, your P1 is not what John 6:44 says. I wish you the best in working this out.
—>I wish you explained why my P1 is not what the text says.
Thanks.
Blessings!
Aaron
Language, unlike symbolic logic, is ambiguous. Whether Greek or English, the referent of a pronoun isn’t always clear or explicitly stated. That’s why you have to use reasoning and common sense to determine it. One could validly say, “No one is able to attend the inauguration, unless he has been invited, and then he will get to see the President sworn in.” What class does the second “he” refer to? It isn’t simply he who has been invited, nor one able to attend (which constitute the same class). It’s a subset of that class consisting of those who actually do attend. The first clause in John 6:44 could be stated “No one is able to be one who comes to me”, which makes clear that “him” in the third clause refers to “one who comes to me”.
John 6:44 poses a huge problem for the Calvinist since the drawing in the second clause has to be the irresistible grace of Calvinism. If Calvinism were true, it would make no sense for Jesus to use the language of ability in the first clause. Ability cannot possibly be involved when the drawing is irresistible, and it makes absolutely no sense to speak of it in this way. If the irresistible grace of Calvinism were a fact, the first clause would simply be “No one comes to me”.
I think Calvinism is a theological ensnarement based on a lack of understanding of the whole picture. I just commented on the passage John 6:35-46 on the blog provided here.
Here’s what’s at issue to me. I’m an Arminian, and though I’m not entirely sure that my position could be called classical, I suspect that it could.
I am not following your argument, but it is because, I suspect, you believe the Father’s drawing is irresistable, while I believe it can be resisted. Central to Arminian theology is the concept of “prevenient grace,” or grace that goes before. In this case, the “drawing” in John 6:44 is that grace.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and [if he comes to me] I will raise him up at the last day.”
I argue that the bracketed clause is implied in both the Greek grammar and the English grammar, and is understood in the plain meaning of the passage.
From an Arminian perspective (or at least MY Arminian perspective), the Father draws all men. BUT although all men are drawn, not all men choose to come. Because Calvinism rejects free will, Calvinists assume that if all men are drawn, all men must come.
So yes, God’s drawing, prevenient grace is universal, but coming to the Lord obviously isn’t universal (on that much we can agree). Further, he who comes will be raised on the last day, but he who does not will not. This is how Arminianism escapes universalism.
“BUT although all men are drawn, not all men choose to come.”
Can you establish that all men are drawn? No, you can’t.
So, how is God’s prevenient grace universal? By definition it is not.
The Arminian escapes universalism the same way the Calvinist does. Arminians hold to predestination. However, they don’t know what that means.
What you have to decide is this: was there ever a time when God did not know who he would raise up?
You have a lot to prove, so you had better get to it. Start by interviewing all those who never heard of the name of Jesus Christ and are consequently in hell. Or, just those who did, and ask them why they never came. True prevenient grace, (the old English term for preventive) sure seemed to fail at doing what it was intended to do, if they weren’t drawn.
And doesn’t this go along with John: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Hmm? When were they brought near, that is, when were they drawn? And were they or were they not raised up with Christ. Ephesians says that it all happened at Calvary, those who are drawn, are those who come because they were given by the Father who raised them up together with Christ and has, past tense, seated them with him in the heavenlies having predestined them for that purpose which he purposed before the world began.
It is just so frustrating how Arminians just muck up what is at first so clear.
How about this one, “All that the Father gives me…” Does he give them at the cross? Before the cross? After? Or, were they given to him before the foundations of the world? Oh, and why were the Jews arguing with him about the drawing if it was universal? Seems they wouldn’t. But, if it was particular, then me thinks that they would be a litte PO’d.
When I was a child, I would say to the teacher, “Can I go get me a drink of water?” She would answer, “It is not a question of ability; it is a question of permission. Yes, you may go get a drink of water.” When Jesus said in Jn.6:44, 65, “no one can come to me,” He made it absolutely clear: “It is not a question of permission; it is a question of ability.” And the only way one gets the ability to truly come to Christ for salvation is by the gift of that ability from the Father. Here is where a lesson learned in childhood about can and may helped me to recognize the reality presented in a word in the text. That word can refers to ability, to power, to the wherewithal, to respond, to come to Christ. And our Lord identifies that source of power as lying in the grace of God to give and bestow it on an individual. Our Baptist predecssors were fully aware of this fact. Anyone who will take the time to do the research will find that they are unanimous on the issue of Jn.6:44 as meaning that man does not have the free will or ability to respond to Christ unless the Father gives it to him.