Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP - Irresistible Grace

Here's the latest podcast, continuing our brief reviews of the teachings of TULIP. Enjoy!

Questions on Salvation

On an internet forum, I had responded to some questions concerning salvation, and I decided to repost it here on my blog. The questions asked are the ones in bold.

What do you have to do to be saved?

Let's make something clear: the act of salvation is the work of God. Paul states in Romans 3 that there are no righteous, no not one, and all have fallen short of the glory of God (v. 10 and 23); he likewise states in Ephesians 2 that we are dead men and (literally in the Greek) "objects of wrath" before God (v. 1-3). What happens then is a regeneration of our heart - as Paul said: "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved" (Eph 2:5). While we were dead, God made us alive - God had to raise us spiritually in order for us to be saved, hence sola gratia. This regeneration causes a person to confess faith in God, as the apostle John wrote:

But 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 of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [Jn 1:12-13]

A lot of people like to quote v. 12 and forget what happens in v. 13: the apostle clarifies that a person is not a child of God because they were born by blood (that is, you're saved because you're a Jew, or because you're in a Christian family), nor by the will of flesh (that is, your works), nor by the will of man (that is, your own individual will to believe), but you are born of God - that is, by God's will. This is what our Lord meant when he told Nicodemus one had to be "born again" to see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3). We owe nothing to ourselves and all to God the Father and the atoning work of Christ - soli deo gloria and solus christus.

Now one thing we have seen here likewise is the importance of faith. When we turn to Christ, we are justified by his blood through our faith, and we are counted as righteous in Christ. As the apostle Paul wrote: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Ro 4:4-5).

Once you are saved, does that mean that you're automatically going to heaven?

Those who are God's sheep will never be lost, as Christ said:

"I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." [Jn 10:28-29]

The apostle Paul likewise wrote:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Ro 8:31-39]

Now if by "automatically going to heaven" you mean that's it, you got your ticket punched and you're going to heaven no matter what you do, even if it's murder, then that's wrong. People often confuse the doctrine of OSAS with Perseverance of the Saints, but they're not the same. Perseverance does not mean you're clear to go no matter what: part of the perseverance is that you will be sanctified more and more by God, approaching closer and closer that state of glory - you'll never be sinless, but more and more you'll find you can sin less. A lot of people like to quote Philippians 2:12, but can't seem to grasp that it's only half a sentence. The full passage from Paul reads:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Php 2:12-13]

Yes, after being saved, we do things for our betterment or to show we are saved (as a pastor of mine once said, we're not "chosen to be frozen"), but it's not because of something we have to do or something we are capable of doing - it's because God is working within us and perfecting us, and He will see this through. As the apostle Paul said: "he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6).

What if you commit a mortal sin after you are saved?

A Christian is judged by their fruits - a person who has a heart regenerated towards God will not go out and seek to kill someone, or steal a car, or the like. He might have those temptations, he might come close, but as seen before, God will preserve him from all acts that would violate this.

I know it's not popular for some to suggest that a statement of faith can be false, or that we can judge whether or not a person is truly saved, but I believe this to be scriptural. The Lord speaks of those who call him "Lord, Lord," and yet were never known by him (Mt 7:22-23). If you study the language the apostle John uses against Diotrephes (3 Jn 1:9-11) and Jude uses against the heretics and false teachers (Jude 1:17-21), you'll see they are questioning whether or not the individuals were truly Christians to begin with.

I am getting confused. Does the person have a choice in the matter? Do they only choose once?

If by choice you mean the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism where God gives a general offer and a person, by their own power, chooses, then no. If you mean does man do anything, then yes, but it is only by the grace of God. As Paul said in Ephesians 2, we are dead men before regeneration - it is God who brings us to life, not ourselves. However, once we are regenerated, then we turn and come to Christ, and are kept preserved by him. As the Lord said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44). In the original Greek, it literally reads "no one has the power to come to me," and the drawing is not a passive thing, but is an effectual calling upon the person (the word literally means "dragging"), and the end result is that, on the last day, that person is raised up.

I'm not quite certain I know what you mean by "only choose once." A person repents and puts their faith in Christ only once, yes, though they will continue to turn to Christ for repentance and strength their entire life - again, an aspect of the "perseverance." They rest in the knowledge that they have a high priest who "always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). 

Did Lazarus contribute?

Did Lazarus contribute to his being raised? Was he the deciding factor in it happening? That some believe so has often astounded me. I was going to write a post on this, but instead I'll let someone else have a say at it and just engage with any conversation that gets started.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Irresistible Grace

I apologize to my readers (especially the one who asked me to do this) for the delay in writing this post. A combination of real life matters (ie., work) as well as real life events I had to attend (ie., a funeral) delayed me somewhat. For those who might be new to this series, see the first post here.

We are moving along with our tiptoeing through the TULIP (durr hurr hurr, me so clever), and we've reached the second-to-last letter: "I", for Irresistible Grace. This phrase, also known as Efficacious or Effectual Grace, refers to the saving grace which God bestows upon an individual. Irresistible Grace refers to the grace God bestows on an individual that both calls them to the Gospel and regenerates them, thus permitting them to respond to the Gospel. This is why it is called irresistible, in that an individual cannot resist the grace once it has been given to them, and why it is likewise called effectual or efficacious, as every calling of God for salvific purposes is successful.

Irresistible Grace, like the other members of TULIP we've discussed before, often gets greatly misrepresented in non-Calvinist circles. Many seem to presume that Irresistible Grace means that God must do something to the equivalent of pointing a gun at a person and saying, "Believe in me or else." Hence some will say that Irresistible Grace teaches that God "forces" people to believe, while others have said that Irresistible Grace teaches that God "drags people into the kingdom." Some have gone so far as to call it "divine rape" - a cruel, irresponsible and utterly reprehensible label if there ever was one. To answer all these misrepresentations, I'll quote a man who was far, far, far more knowledgeable than myself:

It is a common thing for opponents to represent this doctrine as implying that men are forced to believe and turn to God against their wills, or, that it reduces men to the level of machines in the matter of salvation. This is a misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such opinion, and in fact the full statement of the doctrine excludes or contradicts it. The Westminster Confession, after stating that this efficacious grace which results in conversion is an exercise of omnipotence and cannot be defeated, adds, "Yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace." The power by which the work of regeneration is effected is not of an outward and compelling nature. Regeneration does no more violence to the soul than demonstration does to the intellect, or persuasion the heart. Man is not dealt with as if he were a stone or a log. Neither is he treated as a slave, and driven against his own will to seek salvation. Rather the mind is illuminated, and the entire range of conceptions with regard to God, self, and sin, is changed. God sends His Spirit and, in a way which shall forever rebound to the praise of His mercy and grace, sweetly constrains the person to yield. The regenerated man finds himself governed by new motives and desires, and things which were once hated are now loved and sought after. This change is not accomplished through any external compulsion but through a new principle of life which has been created within the soul and which seeks after the food which alone can satisfy it. [Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

Irresistible Grace does not compel anyone against their will. However, let's remember we established in our post regarding Total Depravity that the will of man is enslaved to sin. Man's default condition is to reject God. If God were to simply give an empty call sans regeneration, all men would reject Him. Therefore, logically speaking, regeneration is required in order for the man to respond to God's call, and the regeneration is part of God's calling and beckoning to His elect.

Now that we've done some defining, let's move on to the part of the post where I examine a section of scripture to discuss this topic further. For this topic, we will be turning to Christ's words in the sixth chapter of John's gospel.

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. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. [John 6:35-47]

This follows the account of Christ's miracle with the five thousand fed, followed by his walking on water before the disciples, and will eventually become one of the greatest sermons in scripture regarding faith in God. Now the five thousand who had been fed, desiring to see more miracles, sailed to where Christ was and met him in the synagogues of Capernaum. It seems like Jesus has the chance to start the first megachurch, but then our Lord tells the people, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves" (v. 26). In other words, their faith was not sincere; it wasn't true faith; it was shallow, empty faith that meant nothing. We see this further when the people show a desire to justify themselves, asking: " Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (v. 28) What is Christ's response? What is the one work a person must do to be justified before God? Believe in Christ - sola fide (v. 29). The people are not yet satisfied, and so they ask Christ for signs that they might believe (v. 30-31), suggesting something like the bread that came down out of heaven in the Exodus account (v. 32).

At this point, Christ drops a bit of a bombshell - the Father has already sent them bread out of heaven, and it's him! (v. 35) However, this isn't the Eucharist, and that is made plain when Christ equates eating with coming to him, and drinking with believing in him: "whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Christ is keeping the focus on himself, and especially belief targeted towards him. This belief in him the people do not have, as he says quite plainly in the next verse: "But I have said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe" (v. 36). Yet hadn't these people called him rabbi? (v. 25) Hadn't they sailed across an entire lake to find him and seek him out? (v. 24) How can Christ possibly say they don't believe? How does he even know they don't believe?

Christ then drops another bombshell: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (v. 37). What has our Lord just taught? All that the Father gives to the Son, all these people will come to him, and those who are given to him will never be cast out. In other words, those whom are drawn and called by the Father (and we'll see more of this soon) will come to the Son, and these same individuals will never be cast out. There is a clear chain within this train of thought that is not broken. The reason Christ said the people didn't believe was because he knew who it was the Father had given him, and it was those people who would come to believe in him.

Some people might jump in here and say, "Obviously the Father might give some to the Son, but after that they can reject the Son." The problem with this argument is two-fold. First, it ignores what Christ himself says in verse 37: "whoever comes to me I will never cast out." These people also forget that Christ says in the next verse that he came to do the will of the one who sent him (v. 38), and this is Father's will, as defined by Christ himself: "That I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day" (v. 39). In other words, no one who is given to the Son will fall away, but will be raised up on the last day - in other words, they won't reject the Son, and in fact will be kept secure until the day of resurrection (v. 40).

Now the people in Capernaum have problem understanding all this, as they're harping on the fact that Christ said he was the bread from heaven (v. 41) - after all, didn't he have family and friends that all the people knew of? So how could he come from heaven if (from their perspective) he had an earthly family? (v. 42) How can he be claiming what amounts to divinity? Jesus admonishes them for grumbling (v. 43), and then drops one of the biggest bombshells in the Bible:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. [v. 44]

Here we see the perfect tie between Total Depravity and Effectual Grace (hinted at earlier). No one can come to Christ - literally "No one has the power to come to Christ" in the original Greek. What then happens? They are drawn by the Father. This is not an empty, surface-level drawing, like a sign outside a door beckoning customers to come inside; rather, it is an effectual drawing - a spiritual drawing - that transforms the individual to follow God.

I recognize that many contend this, and argue in this manner: "I agree that no one can come without the drawing of the Father, but people can still reject the Son after the initial drawing." This is similar to the popular concept of Prevenient Grace, which says that God takes totally depraved individual and gives them the ability to respond, either for or against, the gospel. However, we have a great issue here: the person making this argument has only read half a sentence, and we do anyone a great disfavor if we only recognize half a sentence and assume other teachings based on that. For you see, Christ goes on to explain what happens to this person drawn: he is raised up on the last day. Christ clearly teaches that no one can come unless the Father draws him, and it is him who will be raised up on the last day. In my previous post on John 6:44, I used the analogy of a murderer using the phrase "I'm gonna find him and kill him!" and then later telling the police that the two "hims" in that sentence were different. That would be an irrational assumption, and so too would it be to assume that the two "hims" in Christ's statement refer to two completely different individuals. To cut up Christ's statement and read other theologies into it is plain eisegesis.

Some have turned to verse 45, where Christ quotes Isaiah 54:13 with "and they will all be taught of God." The argument, therefore, is that people will be taught of God and hence respond like the better students in the classroom. The problem is that right after the quotation Christ states: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Again - everyone within this category will come to him. Why is this? Well, the concept of "learning from God" in the Old Testament is of itself effectual in nature. The passages in Isaiah 54 feature actions given by God and Him alone in regards to the regeneration and rejuvenation of His people. The teaching of God to His children is not passive, but active, and involves a regeneration towards Him. As God said regarding the new covenant He was preparing: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer 31:33). This is why everyone who has been taught of the Father - through regeneration - will come to the Son.

What have we learned here? Firstly, we've Total Inability reestablished. Secondly, we've been taught that man's coming to God is the effectual work of God, and effectual it is indeed, for all drawn, called, or taught by the Father will come to the Son.

We will, God willing, continue on to the final petal in TULIP within the next week or so.

"I Give You Freedom"

A few days ago, a friend on Facebook introduced me to the song "I Give You Freedom," as sung by the Joy Quartet of Pensacola Christian College. Before I continue any further, let me just say that it seems (at least from this) that the Joy Quartet seem to adore God with a sincere heart, and are indeed very talented singers (they certainly sing better than I do!). It was just the content and presentation of the song caused me to raise an eyebrow and led to make a post for what I thought would be good discussion. This post shouldn't be seen as a personal attack against them or questioning their salvation.

Here is the video itself:



Perhaps what first shocked me in this video was what the sister said at the beginning of the video:

Our God is so great, and He is so gracious, that He gives us freedom to make our own choices, and then we become responsible for those choices.

This, of course, is the classic "God is so powerful He gives you the option to say no" soteriology. However, there is a very real danger here: the belief that man is completely free to decide whether or not to follow God, and afterward is completely responsible for that decision, is the same teaching as the heresy known as Pelagianism. To summarize Pelagianism briefly:

At this point we have touched the central and formative principle of Pelagianism. It lies in the assumption of the plenary ability of man; his ability to do all that righteousness can demand, - to work out not only his salvation, but also his own perfection. This is the core of the whole theory... [B.B. Warfield, Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy, I]

Whether or not the sister intended it to come across this way (most likely she didn't), this is how this extreme mode of synergism appears. It at the very least comes across as semi-Pelagianism, which taught that the beginning of faith was not God's gift, but a complete act of man's complete free will (as opposed to, say, the teaching of prevenient grace by Arminians).

Any way, the lyrics of the song itself are as follows:

I set the boundries of the ocean vast,
Carved out the mountains from the distant past,
Moulded a man from the miry clay,
Breathed in him life, but he went astray.

I hold the waters in My mighty hand
Spread out the heavens with a single span,
Make all creation tremble at My voice,
But My own sons come to Me by choice.

I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

Even the oxen knows the master’s stall,
And sheep will recognize the shepherd’s call
I could demand your love - I own you twice,
But only willing love is worth the price!

I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

And if you want Me to, I’ll make you whole,
I’ll only do it tho’ if you say so.
I’ll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom - Is it "yes" or "no"?

I'd like to now review the lyrics, bit by bit, and examine what is said.

I set the boundries of the ocean vast,
Carved out the mountains from the distant past,
Moulded a man from the miry clay,
Breathed in him life, but he went astray.

This is very true - God made man, and man went astray. Yet what was the result of that going astray? Did Adam just present a bad example for men to follow, and they need Jesus as a better example? Did man become only kind of depraved, but still capable of rejecting or receiving God? What was the state of this fallen man?

Scripture is very clear on the state of fallen man. It teaches that "every intent of the thoughts" of man's heart is "only evil continually" (Gen 6:5). It teaches that "there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins" (Ecc 7:20). It teaches that "there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God" (Rom 3:10-11). It teaches that before coming to faith, Christians were "by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph 2:3). Christ Himself taught: "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). He likewise that: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." (John 6:44); and "...no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65).

The state of man is one of constant sin and transgression against God. On top of that, it is one wherein man is constantly in rebellion against God, and wants nothing to do with the true God of scripture. He might seek after false gods or a false concept of God to fulfill a "spiritual need," but in regards to the true God with whom salvation can be found, there is absolutely no desire.

I hold the waters in My mighty hand
Spread out the heavens with a single span,
Make all creation tremble at My voice,
But My own sons come to Me by choice.

Do we become sons of God solely by our own independent choice? That is, a complete, absolutely free choice from our own will? Many jump to John 1:12, which reads: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." Aha! the person says, it says "as many received Him" - that means they have to make a free choice!

They forget, however, that John 1:12 is merely half a sentence, and that John continues on in the next verse to say: "...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." John makes the distinction clear: they were not born of blood (in other words, they weren't saved simply for being Jews); they weren't born of the flesh (in other words, by their own works), and they weren't born of the will of man (in other words, a libertarian, semi-Pelagian free will), but rather they were born of God. Their regeneration, which led to their acceptance of Christ, was itself the will of God.

Might I also point out that the line "My own sons come to Me by choice" makes it seem as if our status as God's sons is a complete unilateral action from the part of man. However, scripture clearly teaches otherwise:

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. [Eph 1:5-6]

We become sons not by applying for it like we do a job - we come through it by adoption. Does an orphan choose who his adoptive parents will be? Of course not. In like manner, it is said that God predestined us to adoption as sons, and did so through Jesus Christ. God does not swing open the door of His home and say whoever comes in can be a son - God actively adopts His sons.

I own the cattle on a thousand hills,
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.

As we've already established that when man fell, man fell completely. It was not a matter of a small mistake. Adam did not make a boo-boo like a kid spilling milk - he transgressed against the one true God. Mankind followed suit, as Seth and all his descendants were not in image and likeness of God, but rather the image and likeness of Adam (Gen 5:3). Mankind, until regeneration, is a slave to sin (John 8:34; Rom 6:17-18).

If we confess that man, before regeneration, is a slave to sin, then we have to ask what he will use that free will of his to do? To put it another way: a brick is capable of going up or down, but if you hold a brick out, say, "You have free will to go up and down", and then let go, chances are, because of the force of gravity, the brick will fall down. In like manner, whether or not man is told to repent or blaspheme, without the work of the Spirit, man will always choose to blaspheme due to the force of sin.

Even the oxen knows the master’s stall,
And sheep will recognize the shepherd’s call
I could demand your love - I own you twice,
But only willing love is worth the price!

The mention of an ox knowing their master's call is a reference to the first chapter of the book of Isaiah, where God laments: "An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, My people do not understand" (Isa 1:3). God is highlighting the sad state of affairs among his people at this time. It is during this that, many verses later, Isaiah himself says: "Unless the LORD of hosts had left us a few survivors, we would be like Sodom, we would be like Gomorrah" (Isa 1:9). Note that in the midst of all this sin, it is said that "the LORD of hosts" has "left us a few survivors." God has actively done something - He has kept a chosen remnant among the people, just as He did during the days of Elijah.

Note too, the lyric "I could demand your love." It is the presupposition by many synergists that if man's coming to Christ is not completely by his autonomous will, then it must be by a tyrannical compulsion. The fallacy in this presumption, however, is that they presume irresistible grace lacks regeneration - in their mind, if the man opposes God before irresistible grace, he will still be opposing God after irresistible grace. This, however, is not the case. Christ said that no man can come to Him unless the Father who sent Him draws the man (John 6:44), and likewise that all given to Him by the Father will come to Him (John 6:37). When a man is drawn by God's grace, it not only compels him to come to Him, but it regenerates him, making him want to come. Irresistible grace is not God putting a gun to someone's head and saying, "You better love me, or else!" It's God transforming the sinner's heart into a repentant's heart and bringing him into the fold.

And if you want Me to, I’ll make you whole,
I’ll only do it tho’ if you say so.
I’ll never force you, for I love you so,
I give you freedom - Is it "yes" or "no"?

This part of the song made me wince upon first hearing. This is a completely semi-Pelagian soteriology. The idea that God has this great plan of salvation but essentially is just leaving it on the table and crossing his arms and waiting for man to just come up and take it...that just simply isn't scriptural, nor is it logical, given what we know scripture teaches about the condition of man.

Might I also ask...what are we really glorifying here? Are we glorifying God, or something we particularly want from God? Are we glorifying God for His supposed granting of freedom, or are we glorifying our belief that we have the freedom to say yes or no, and thus determine our own salvation? Is the glorification here really one of God...or one of man? This is all something that I believe is worth contemplating in our review of what we uphold to be orthodox theology.

Getting Around John 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." [John 6:44; NASB]

This single verse is found in the episode of Christ speaking to a large group of eager disciples in the synagogues of Capernaum. Have just fed five thousand with bread and fish (v. 1-14) and then walked on water in the sight of His twelve closest disciples (v. 15-21), this seems to be the high-water mark of Christ's earthly ministry. Those who had witnessed the miracle of the fishes and loaves head out in boats to find Him and, doing so, seek to have Christ perform another great sign and wonder (v. 22-25). However, this chapter will end with all but the twelve deserting Christ because of the hard teachings He gives them...one of which is seen above, in verse 44.

Let’s now analyze this verse bit by bit:

No one can come to Me...

The state of a person pre-belief: no one is able to come to Christ. “No one can come,” also translated as “No one is able to come.” The root Greek word used for “able” (δύναμαι) means to have power, so that the phrase literally translates as, “No one has the power to come to Me.”

...unless the Father who sent Me draws him...

The Greek for this section reads:

...ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτὸν...

The Greek word ἐὰν is mostly used to introduce a condition or desired result, whereas μὴ is often used to offer a negation, hence the translation of "unless" (a literal translation would be "if not"). In other words, there is an extension of the condition (no man can come to Christ), which is the conditional solution: unless the Father who sent Christ draws him. If a person is not drawn by the Father, then they will not come to Christ; if a person is drawn by the Father, they will come to Christ. Fine scriptural evidence for both total inability and irresistible grace.

...and I will raise him up on the last day.

The finale of the verse. The person who has been drawn now has a promise: "I will raise him up on the last day." Note that the "him" whom the Father draws is the same "him" that is raised up on the last day. This entire verse, in fact, is a reiteration of what Christ had said in John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." Christ likewise said in John 6:39: “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last.” All given by the Father to Christ will come to Him, and none will be cast out for any reason; likewise, the will of God is that all given to Christ will not be lost, but be raised up. When the Father gives the Son a person, that individual is guaranteed to be raised up on the last day. Thus it does not rely on he who wills or he who runs, but on God's sovereign grace upon the individual. We can see now why such sayings were so hard for the failing disciples in Capernaum.

Despite the clarity of this verse and its teachings, there are many who do not want to come to the conclusion that we just have. As such, there are a few ways people attempt to get around this. Let's analyze these attempts one at a time:

1. Jumping to John 12:32.

The Argumentation: Many, when trying to respond to John 6:44, immediately jump to John 12:32, which reads:

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

The conclusion, therefore, is that God draws literally all men to Christ. Some even point out that in the original Greek, the word “men” or (as it is sometimes translated) “people,” is not present, but it simply reads “I will draw all to Myself.” Some have even argued that, because of this, Reformed theology teaches universalism, since it claims that all men drawn will come to Christ (John 6:44) and yet Christ says all men will be drawn (John 12:32).

The Dilemma: There are three parts to this dilemma:

1) In jumping from John 6:44 to John 12:32, we commit the error of immediately jumping from the context of what the passage we’re dealing with is saying and finding another passage. Many justify this by arguing that the Bible must be taken in its entirety, and while this is true it is best to be used when dealing with broader subjects. To simply jump from passage to passage turns exegesis into proof-texting. Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to verify scripture with scripture, or to look for a truth within all of scripture; only that jumping from one verse to another must be done with discernment.

Such scriptural acrobatics likewise presents a way of thinking that does not correlate with how we follow a train of thought. If Person A talks to Person B, Person B is only capable of knowing what Person A is saying within that frame of time. Person B has no way of knowing what Person A is going to say months down the road. Those listening to Christ in the synagogues of Capernaum were listening to a single train of thought, not listening to Him say John 6:44 and then suddenly knowing what He’d say in John 12:32. Such a situation is something I call a “grammatical Slaughterhouse Five.” For those who don’t know, Slaughterhouse Five was a book by Kurt Vonnegut where the main character could, at will, travel between events in his life, so that the narrative goes from his time in World War II to his death to his marriage and so on. Many reading scripture treat the train of thought in a similar fashion, so that we go from Jesus lecturing failing disciples in Capernaum to Jesus in Jerusalem responding to Greek requests.

2) To say that Christ means He will literally draw all men (that is, every single individual) to Himself is illogical, and for an obvious reason: not all men have been drawn. Some atheists, misinterpreting this passage, have tried to claim this as a contradiction in scripture, since it is clear that after Christ was raised not every person was drawn to Him, and indeed some have died never hearing of the gospel. If Christ truly meant that He would draw literally all men, then He is either a liar or a failed Savior, for He has not accomplished that goal.

3) To say that Christ is saying literally all men will be drawn to Him is to ignore the context of this passage in John’s gospel. At the beginning of this section, some Greeks had come and said they desired to see Jesus (John 12:20-21). The disciples go and tell Jesus (John 12:22), from which Christ goes into a lengthy speech regarding His upcoming crucifixion. At the end of the speech, Christ departs...and never sees the Greeks (John 12:36). Why was this? This was because His time with the Gentiles had not yet come, but after the crucifixion many men - Gentiles included - would be drawn to Christ. The reason this verse is often translated as "all men" or "all people" is to clarify that this is what Christ means: all kinds of people. Even synergistic theologians (Adam Clarke, John Wesley) and Eastern Fathers (John Chrysostom, Theophylact) recognize that, when Christ says "all" in John 12:32, He simply means both Jews and Gentiles, mostly likely because they also recognized both the context discussed here and the dilemma discussed in the previous section.

2. Ignoring half the verse.

The Argumentation: The person reads the first half of the verse, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." From here they conclude, "Ah, on this we agree - no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws them. However, after that it is still possible to reject Christ." John Wesley, in his commentary for John 6:44, writes:

No man can believe in Christ, unless God give him power: he draws us first, by good desires. Not by compulsion, not by laying the will under any necessity; but by the strong and sweet, yet still resistible, motions of his heavenly grace.

Wesley, like so many who read this verse, argues that God does indeed draw a man, and agrees that a man cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws Him...but maintains that a person can still, after being drawn, reject Christ. Many likewise argue that the “coming” initiated by the Father is merely the enablement, but after that the person must still decide to believe in Christ.

The Dilemma: Every person who argues this way commits the same fallacy: they ignore half the verse. You see, this is not how the verse ends. Christ follows up this statement with: "...and I will raise him up on the last day." Something happens to the person who is drawn to Christ by the Father: that person will be raised up by Christ on the last day. An unbeliever is not raised up on the last day (at least not in the context in which Christ is speaking), therefore this cannot be a person who has rejected Christ.

Those attempting to say that a person drawn must still believe and therefore still has the ability to reject Christ are essentially adding conditions which Christ Himself never puts there. Some might argue that we have to believe in Christ, and while that is true, that is no doubt part of the Father's drawing: those drawn will believe in Christ. However, there is no possibility that those drawn by the Father will reject Christ for two simple reasons: 1) that possibility is not said in the text, and is therefore simple eisegesis; 2) Christ has already established that of all those given to Him by the Father, He will lose nothing (v. 39).

3. Separating the "hims."

The Argumentation: Many people, recognizing that there are two uses of “him” in the passage, will argue that the “him” that is drawn by the Father is different than the “him” that Christ raises up on the last day. The first “him” is a person whom the Father draws, but after that can still resist. The second “him” is merely the person who accepts God and therefore will be raised up.

The Dilemma: Let me present a little parable: suppose a man is angry with another man, and makes the statement, “I’m gonna find him and kill him!” He goes out and does it. Now imagine if the police, hearing that the man had threatened to kill the murder victim, arrest him. Under interrogation, the man replies, “Oh, no! I was misunderstood! The ‘him’ I wanted to find and the ‘him’ I intended to kill were two different people! The ‘him’ I found was the murder victim, but the ‘him’ I wanted to kill wasn’t!” Of course, this wouldn’t fly at all. That excuse would be laughed at in a court case, let alone a police interrogation. No human being thinks or speaks with this train of thought unless they’re mentally incapable. Nonetheless, this is exactly how many people argue from this passage. There is nothing in the text to suggest the two uses of "him" indicate separate persons, and to suggest they are is to run away from dealing with that fact.