John 6:44 Prevenient Grace

[psimmond]

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

No one can come sounds like it's impossible, right?
Why can no one come? Is it because if the Father didn't draw people, people would lack both the desire and the ability to come?

I saw in an old thread where someone asked about all of the Muslims who are seeking Allah. Are they being drawn by Yahweh but mistakenly following Allah thinking that he's drawing them?

How does the Father draw?
1. By making himself known through His creation?
2. By planting ideas in the minds of unbelievers, either directly or indirectly (another person, radio, tv, etc.) through His Spirit?
3. Other?

The next verse says: "It is written in the Prophets: And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me..."
Is the drawinging in v44 synonymous with God teaching people in v45?

John 12:32 says "As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all [people] to Myself." Surely God must have drawn people before Jesus was lifted up on the cross, right? Did God only draw some men prior to the death of His son, but now He draws all?

How does Prevenient Grace fit into all of this? (Isn't Prevenient Grace the idea that God has to open the spiritual eyes of the unregenerate so they can recognize and respond, if they wish, to the truth of the gospel when they hear it?)

[alastairblake]

wonderful topic!

[darinhouston]

I believe "some" Calvinists would say that they aren't seeking God on His terms when they seek Allah. They are only self-motivated at some level, even if it is subconscious, and that while some can "claim" to seek God or "appear" to seek God, they are really seeking a lesser god or some other power or such thing regardless of the nominative naming of "God" or the appearance that they are seeking God. I think they would see such people like those Hebrew congregants in the desert who followed the pillar of fire, but had no heart for sacrifice or for worship of God -- just the benefits they could get from Him. They would, I think, say these people are following carnality not the spirit, and aren't being drawn by God, and that such carnality can't bring them to a saving relationship with God no matter how fervently they seek Him.

[psimmond]

They would, I think, say these people are following carnality not the spirit, and aren't being drawn by God, and that such carnality can't bring them to a saving relationship with God no matter how fervently they seek Him.

I was taught in Sunday School that God draws all people to him through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit somehow opens people's sin-blinded eyes enough that they can see the truth and choose whether or not to place their faith in the one true God. (I didn't learn about Calvinism and irresistible grace until I was a university student.) I still think what I was taught in Sunday School fits the whole of scripture better than Calvinism, but the more I think about it, the more questions I come up with.

In Hebrew 11 where it talks about great men of faith like Noah and Abraham it says "Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him." Throughout history, people from various faiths have sought different gods through oracles, visions, and even drug-induced hallucinations. I think it could also be truthfully said that all through history people have been placing their faith in various gods because they believed that those gods were real and that those gods would reward those who believed in their existence and tried to please them.

Now I'm not sure that I want to go as far as C.S. Lewis:

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said 'Son, thou art welcome.' But I said 'Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.' He answered, 'Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.' Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, 'Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?' The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, 'It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?' I said, 'Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.' But I said also (for the truth contained me) 'Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.' 'Beloved,' said the Glorious One, 'unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

But what Paul says in Acts 17 sounds similar:

Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you....Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has set a day on which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.

Nevertheless, although I don't think the Ninevites worshipped Yahweh, the fact that He sent a prophet to them telling them to repent in order to escape destruction shows He obviously loved and cared about them.

Was God drawing all Ninevites to him even before He sent Jonah? If so what was the nature of that drawing? And does God now draw in a different way as a result of Jesus' death and resurrection?

On a post on the old forum I saw where someone said that they believe God draws men through his creation and their conscience. Romans 1:20 & 2:14-15 (Steve's teaching on this second passage says that the Gentiles are probably believers since v15 says, "...the work of the law is written on their hearts."

I wonder if we can accurately say...

1. God has always drawn all people and although He sometimes used visions, prophets, etc., He primarily drew people to him through his creation (and perhaps their conscience) prior to Jesus' death and resurrection.

• a. Creation is enough to prove the existence of a god who should be glorified, and it even shows some of his invisible attributes (Romans 1:19-21). But by itself it is not enough to let people know who this god is.

2. Since Jesus' death and resurrection, although God still draws all men with his creation (and perhaps their conscience) and some with visions, etc., He also draws men to Him through Jesus (John 12:32) by means of the spreading of the gospel.

• a. Creation and the gospel together prove the existence of a god who should be glorified and fill in the missing information about this deity.

What do y'all think?

[DanielGracely]

Hi psimmond,

The below is something I mostly composed a few years ago. I cite Conrad at one point; this is Carl Conrad, Prof. Emeritus of Classical Languages at Washington Univ. in St. Louis (and one time moderator of B-Greek online, a site devoted to N.T. questions on Greek). I realize the following might be a little hard to follow, but if you take your time reading it, I think it will help you. One other comment. I don't believe God can "implant' ideas in our minds. He can only present them. While God gives us the ability to think, he cannot give us what to think. If he did, there would be an erasure between the mind of God and us. In other words, we would be God. As Decartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Technically speaking, no one can think a thought for someone else. This fact makes possible and explains individuated sentient being.

God bless,

Dan

When Christ states in John 6:44 “No man can (Gr. dunamai, i.e., is able to) come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him,” it should be noted again that the use of can is tied to will. Hence an example from the same writer, John, who says in 1 John 3:9 “and he (i.e., whosoever is born of God) cannot (negative of same Gr. root, dunamai) sin, because he is born of God.” Here in the context of his first epistle, John is saying that we cannot sin because we have exercised our will to a point of repentance (a changing of the mind in which we receive Christ) from the lie (that Christ is not come in the flesh), a repentance of mind from which the true believer never departs because he will not. Moreover, God’s Spirit witnesses with the believer’s spirit that the believer is a child of God. A statement about the word ‘can’ in the New Testament is relevant here. I believe the word ‘can’ (Gr. dunamai, commonly claimed to mean ‘to be able to’) can be misleading to English readers in contexts about intention, and should in such cases be understood as “to be able by means of the will,” i.e., ‘powers the will to.’ This is not the exact same thing as “do,” if by “do” is meant “to bring the will unto an effect besides itself.” Carl Conrad notes the following about dunamai:

“As for DUNAMAI, it is an intransitive verb functioning as an auxiliary requiring a complementary infinitive in normal usage. Be careful about classification of active and passive and by no means assume that a verb that is not active must be passive. Perhaps it is a truism and not very helpful to say it, but I think that Voice in the ancient Greek verb is at least as slippery a phenomenon as Aspect. Particularly tricky is the Middle voice, and many of the forms that are traditionally categorized as passive in Greek are really, in my opinion, middle.”

Conrad also notes that middle-passive verbs are not middle OR passive; thus, the matter is not merely expressed by saying “The boy was baptized,” but also, “The boy allowed himself to be baptized.” Similarly, though not exact (owing to the object’s subject being the person himself), as regards dunamai, then, we note that a man’s own spirit (his will) is the subject that renders his own soul (his desires, thoughts, and deliberation) passive regarding the matter at hand. In short, man’s spirit renders his soul passive whenever the spirit acts. Thus, for example, Christ in Gethsemane, after lengthy deliberation upon His desire to avoid the cross, nevertheless acted in His spirit (willed Himself) to submit to His Father, and, in so doing, rendered His soul passive unto the Father’s desire. That is, Christ ruled His soul by His spirit. And his passions, though they remained in some degree present and even contrary to the Father, proved (because of Christ’s will) not active unto ruling. Even so, the disciple of Christ is called to deny himself and follow Christ. This means that our spirit is to deny our soul’s greatest desire of avoiding the persecution that arises from following Christ, and follow Christ nonetheless. Thus (again), the spirit of man, when it acts, renders his own soul passive. Put another way, the man puts his soul passive in relation to his will. Observe also that this is the case even when a man’s soul is congruent with what his will chooses, because it is a man’s own will—not his soul—that actually rules himself, for better or worse. This is simply the nature of what man is. Note the distinction in Hebrews 4:12 between the soul and the spirit, as represented by the thoughts and intents, respectively: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Just as a skilled surgeon can separate the joints and marrow when operating, so God’s word exposes the difference between our desires on the one hand, and our will on the other, which involves our motives. It is, in fact, man’s motive of will that God judges. If this were not the case, then the Father would have judged Christ guilty for having different desires in His soul than that of the Father. But Christ was victor in His will and motive, which is why God has given Him a name above all names, so that every knee [ought to (subjunctive mood)] bow, and every tongue [ought to (subjunctive mood)] confess, that Jesus is Lord.

So then, in turning our attention again upon John 6:44, the spirit of man wills, i.e., is actively rendering his thoughts, desires, and emotions passive, with the result that [and in order that (the ecbatic and telic sense are both apparent here in the middle-passive)] he is not coming toward Christ apart from the Father’s pulling. This is how the matter stands as a brute fact. Thus in John 6:44, though the complimentary infinitive for dunamai, as grammarians would normally describe it, would be “coming,” since dunamai is a verb that does not take an object and therefore requires an infinitive, which, in this case takes the object “Son”— yet it must also be understood in another sense that dunamai is a transitive verb insofar as man (his spirit) takes himself (his soul) as the object. Therefore, as dunamai is a middle-passive verb (which means that at least in some sense (in fact, in the soul sense) the person is the subject of his own actions), we could woodenly translate the opening phrase in John 6:44 thus: “No one wills himself to be coming to the Son…” Again, however, the KJV, instead of using to will or to power (one’s self), here translates Gr. dunamai as “can” in the context of a man’s own will. The resulting traditional interpretation is that man, besides his inability to provide an atonement for himself, also cannot even receive God’s provided atonement of Christ’s blood unless the Father drags the man’s will into a place where the man ‘receives’ it. But unfortunately for the Calvinist, the surrounding context and examples of John 6 simply do not justify the Calvinistic idea that man cannot choose good (see John 6:44 in Scripture Index for further comments). Therefore, one may come to the conclusion that the verb “can” in (KJV) John 6:44 (i.e. “no man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him,”)—besides meaning “to be able to,” which at one level of meaning means that man cannot come to the Son for reconciliation because of his de facto inability to provide his own atonement—must be understood at another level to mean (even if it be not literally translated as such), the verb will, i.e., [“can (by virtue of the will)”]. Thus “will” is preferred (or at least understood within this verse’s polyvalent meaning), lest it be thought that total inability is in view, in which unfortunate case other key passages might be similarly misunderstood, and so lead to the thought that man has no real freedom of the will. In fact, a proper understanding of “can” as “will” clears up considerable confusion in certain other passages, even in which Jesus (as One Person of the Godhead) is the subject. For example, when Christ speaks in the present tense to state that, “The Son can do nothing of himself, except what he seeth the Father do,” the real meaning must be “The Son will do nothing of himself [lit., if expansively, wills himself to be doing nothing of himself] except that which the Father shows Him;” for otherwise the word “cannot” would mean that Christ had no free will choice of His own in the matter. Yet Christ’s remark in Gethsemane (i.e., “not my desire, but thine be done”) and His de facto choice of whether to call for angels to rescue Himself, clearly shows that He could have subverted the Father’s plan, broken Scripture, and not have drunk of the cup of death. Along these lines, note also how the following verse [(Int.) Mt. 26:54]—”How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?”—is actually used by some theologians to argue that Christ could not have failed. This assumption comes from reading the KJV’s “shall” (or the NAS’s “will”) instead of the Interlinear’s “should.” But observe that even here the word “must” is still subject to the word “fulfilled,” which is in the subjunctive mood, and therefore makes the matter contingent, i.e., in effect, “IF the Scriptures are to be fulfilled, it must be in this way.” But of course to the dedicated Calvinist there really is no such thing as the Subjunctive Mood when God or His Word is the grammatical subject of the sentence. Calvinists simply assign all such occurrences of the subjunctive to idiomatic expression. This is all part of the Calvinists’ rigorous program of special pleading whenever God (or His Word, etc.) is the grammatical subject, as necessary. Again, however, and for the reader’s sake, we will repeat the following to a point of ad nauseam—words don’t change meaning depending on the grammatical subject.

So the Calvinist’s substitution of “can” for “will” is a major problem affecting key doctrine in all commonly used English translations. This is because in English translations the word “can” is often inferred to mean that even certain de facto acts which are possible of the human will are not hypothetically possible. The danger of this problem can hardly be overstated. In short, there is (especially) no single formal English quid pro quo word for Gr. dunamai, since formal English divides dunamai into “can,” “will,” and “may.” Only in informal English do we gain something of dunamai’s other meanings besides “can”, e.g., “Teacher, can I get a drink of water?”

So then, as part of its polyvalent meaning, John 6:44 means that men will not come, for to insist here on the English formal “can” instead of “will” would be to make the verse of private interpretation at the expense of numerous other detailed biblical passages (involving both near and far contexts) which affirm an uncorrupted human will (see my free online book, Calvinism, a Closer Look, chapters 12, 13, 18, & 20). Thus, whether dunaami should mean “can” or “will” or even “may” depends on the context. (The only exception for John 6:44 would be if “can” refers only to man’s inability to produce his own atonement.)

Furthermore, a polyvalent meaning of “can” and “will” is also possible in at least one passage, e.g., Matthew 6:27, in which Jesus, besides asking the following question plainly, may also be using rhetorical humor to reply to the idea of mind-over-matter, when he asks who it is, that, by taking thought, ‘can,’ i.e., or chooses (wills) to add a cubit to his stature? Note too, and perhaps more importantly, that when Jesus is asked by his disciples and the father of the demoniacal son why the disciples (Gr.) ou dunamai (KJV Eng.) were not able to cast out the demon, Jesus replied that this generation was faithless and perverted, i.e., that the disciples (who could cast out demons because Christ gave them the power to) could not because they would not, i.e., chose not to have faith through the exercise of earnest prayer, but were rather perverted in this instance, in which they typified the generation of His poor hearers (Mk. 9). Finally in this regard, note also the “may” aspect of dunamai in Scripture, exampled when the Athenians (Acts 17:19) asked Paul, “May (dunamai) we know…?” Observe how especially the word “can” makes no sense here. In fact, this verse shows the ignorance of R.C. Sproul’s implicit argument that dunamai always means “can,” but never “may.” Or are we to suppose that Sproul thinks the Athenians were asking Paul if they “can” know, i.e., have the mental capacity to understand an argument! But if we wait a little, perhaps Sproul can (will) either 1) change the meaning of the verb dunamai in John 6:44, so that it has the restrictive meaning of “to be able to” when man’s coming to God is the subject; or 2) at the expense of his previous argument [i.e., "Who has not been corrected by a schoolteacher for confusing the words can and may?"], allow the word “may” but insist on a God who answers No to the question of “May we…?”, i.e., does not allow men to come apart from His pulling, so that all glory for man’s salvation goes to God (as though man having predicative ability to come to God would somehow nullify God’s glory). In other words, while arguably there IS a subjunctive aspect of the verb dumanai present here, pointing to the contingency of God providing atonement, Sproul, to follow Calvin, would take the subjunctive aspect (insofar as it can be said that Calvinists even grant God subjunctive contingency), to refer to the Calvinistic definition of “regeneration”; or 3) allow the word symbol “will” but imply (via a point about the “deadness” of man) that man has no more predicative possibility than a plant. But regardless of which of these three options Sproul may take—wood, hay, or stubble—we anticipate that if he becomes aware of our argument but remains deaf to it, he will step down into a darker, deeper irrationality in order to keep a retreating pace from the sunbeam of the Spirit’s truth that exposes more of his method. But by proceeding this way, Sproul can at least undergird his already false lexical assumptions with more of the same. And incidentally, note in the last sentence how “can” means both “can” and “will.”

But moving on, if the English reader will understand that “can” encompasses all the above proper considerations for dunamai as we, not Sproul or those like him, have explained it—that is, essentially like its informal English use—then “can” would appear to be an acceptable translation. Historically, I believe cultures blur the words “can” and “may” lexically to hide motive or to soften rejection. No one likes to say, “I will not come to your party,” nor even ask the question, “Will you come to my party?” Simply put, societies have found the word “can” easier on their souls.

Now, let me say one more thing here, regarding John 6:44, and that man cannot come, for I recently saw something additionally in my last reading. It appears to me that the essential issue in John 6 is about whether man will live by bread alone. Thus, Jesus perceived that the people whom He miraculously fed would COME and take Him by force, to make Him king (v. 15), because (as He told them later) they wanted physical bread alone, not the spiritual bread (Manna from heaven) which they also needed (see v. 26ff.). This kind of intended coming to the Son speaks of man’s protocol. But that is not the Father’s protocol. The Father’s protocol for coming toward the Son is through the Son on the cross. For it is the Son, lifted up, who will draw all men unto Himself. And so, the Father sets the protocol for approach like a king did in ancient times. This is the context of John 6:44, i.e., that man cannot come according to his own protocol—which is to live by bread alone. Thus, at the layer of meaning in John 6:44 regarding protocol, dunamai means may, i.e., no man may come to the Son except via the Father’s protocol—i.e., His drawing—which is through His Son’s lifting up which will draw all men. The reason this is called the Father’s drawing is because Christ came not on His own. [Note that, conversely, man's (the human) protocol hearkens back to that which Satan claimed was Job's modus operandi in serving God—bare self interest. And observe further that Jesus, being God, exhibited the opposite nature compared to that which Satan claimed of God in the book of Job, and chose self denial and the path of the cross, instead of offering bribery to ensure man's following. For physical bread alone is what the crowd wanted, thus their challenge to Jesus to perform a daily miracle of physical bread as they believed Moses had done.

One last thought here about the “may” aspect of dunamai in John 6:44. It might be objected that “may” is not in view at all, or else the Greek would have spelled dunamai to show subjunctive. But the counter-argument is this. Even as in English the word “can” may be used in a polyvalent sense so that the formal “can” and informal “may” aspects of meaning are both present, though the spelling (i.e., “can” instead of “may”) only indicates one of the meanings—the formal meaning, so likewise in Greek. For since in Greek a verb like dunamai will only take one of those endings to show either indicative or subjunctive (or other tense), the indicative and subjunctive aspects may both be meant, though only the indicative be indicated by the verb’s spelling. For example, I might say in English, “I cannot go the company’s party to receive a gift from the boss,” for more than just one reason. I might not go because I have no means of transportionto get to the party to receive the gift—therefore I cannot come and receive the gift, but also because I am unwilling to receive a gift from the boss because I do not like him—therefore I may not come and receive a gift. The first is beyond my control (provision of transportation and provision of the gift), the second is not (reception of the gift). Even so, a man both cannot come to Christ unless the Father provides the means of coming— even Jesus Christ the Righteous One (understood metaphorically in John 6 to be the Manna from Heaven), nor may he come if, when the means have been provided, he refuses (to allow himself) to come. Thus may the word “can” be used to express both formal and informal aspects of meaning in English, even as the Greek verb “dunamai” may express both aspects of meaning, though solely with its indicative spelling, that is, if the context justifies it. And in my opinion the context of John 6 does justify both the indicative and subjunctive aspects of meaning.

[psimmond]

DanielGracely,
Thanks for sharing. You were right about it being hard to follow! I have a decent understanding of English grammar but know nothing about Greek grammar
I do have to say that I'm always concerned when I hear people say that passages should have been translated in a way that differs from every Bible version I can find.
BTW, since posting these questions, I've been reading up on Molinism. It seems that Molinism answers many if not all of my questions. (Of course, I once thought Arminianism (and later Open Theism) answered my questions )

[DanielGracely]

Hi psimmond,
I regret that it was hard to follow. I was mostly trying to point out that the Greek word (dunamai) translated "can" behaves as "can" in informal, NOT formal English, and so may at times mean "wills to" or "may". Yet this seems to be something lexicons are unwilling to admit.

BTW I would caution you against trusting too much to the translations (because of supposed scholarly credentialism behind them), even if all of them agree with each other. For example, according to the KJV, Christ said "and they shall never perish" about those sheep whom he knew, and who followed him, and unto whom he gave eternal life. But if you look up the verse in BlueLetterBible.com, and hit the blue button that explains the Greek tense, voice, and mood of the verb, it states that it is in the middle voice, subjunctive mood. This means the phrase should have been translated "and they should (ought) not to destroy themselves." Middle voice means self-reflexive action; subjunctive mood expresses contingency to some degree. And that's my problem with translations. Either there is a middle voice or there isn't. Either there is a subjunctive mood or there isn't. Yet sometimes translations simply ignore the grammar when translators' key doctrines are at stake, like Perseverence among the KJV's Calvinist-oriented translators in John 10. If translators are going to make up their own rules when their favorite doctrines are at stake, I have a problem with that. But don't take my word for it. Please check it out yourself.

God bless,

Dan

[psimmond]

Hi Dan,
I know what you're saying about how bias can affect translation. That's one of the reasons that I use e-Sword with 9 different Bible versions. I think it's doubtful that this many committees would all share the same bias. (Of course it's possible, but it's also highly unlikely.)

Peace and love along with faith,
Peter

[alastairblake]

I want to say hello to Dan. Glad to see you on here. your book was an encouragement to me. Great to have you. (maybe you have been here for a while. but i just noticed)

[Homer]

That's one of the reasons that I use e-Sword with 9 different Bible versions. I think it's doubtful that this many committees would all share the same bias. (Of course it's possible, but it's also highly unlikely.)

Not as unlikely as you think. King James did not allow ekklesia or baptizo to be translated into English in the KJV. How many translations can you find, since the KJV, that have translated either word into English?