The Drawing of the Father

[Reklaw]

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but I would like to hear the opinion of many, especially LDS.

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I acame down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Fatherâ??s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up cat the last day...No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life...But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:37-40,44-47,63-65)

This is often used by those influenced by Calvinism to prove some of kind of predestined regeneration. Those predestined for salvation are "drawn" by the Father. It has nothing to do with personal choice, since the "natural man" cannot subject himself to God.

I have a few ideas to throw out:

The "giving" of vs. 37 & 65 and "drawing" of vs. 44 are parallel. Those given are drawn and those drawn are given because both the "given" and the "drawn" come to Christ in all of these verses. In vs. 45, it describes those "given" or "drawn": "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (or "listens to the Father and learns.") Those who are "given" or are "drawn" in this context are those that "listen to the Father and learn." Paul explicitly states in Romans 10 that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word (Greek is "spoken word" and in context means "preached word") of (objective genitive: "the word spoken about...") God (or "Christ" in some manuscripts)." We develop faith by hearing and learning the word of God. Christ explained to Peter in Matt. 16 that his testimony of Christ was not revealed by "flesh and blood," "but my Father which is in heaven." Paul stated that "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" in 1 Cor. 12. John said that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" in Rev. 19 (we know that prophecy is a gift of the Spirit). We therefore see that it is God that gives us a testimony of Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. However, we can resist the Holy Ghost: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye" (Acts 7:51, there are many others that talk about refusing the gospel, but this is one of the most upfront verses). Notice in John 6:29 that Christ describes believing or faith as "the work of God." This is an objective genitive, meaning "the work for God" or "the work towards God." This is why some translate it "the work God requires." John 6 demonstrates God's influence in our lives and our responsibility to accept it.

However, the Book of Mormon certainly attributes are change of heart to God's influence: "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God." (Moroni 7:12-13)

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." (Mosiah 3:19)

"For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil. Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state. But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore, he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God. And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption." (Mosiah 16:3-6)

All of these verses speak of God's influence, yet leaves man's free will intact. We choose to subject ourselves to God or to the devil.

Calvinists will also push that "draw" in John 6 is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean "drag by force," therefore proving the doctrine of irresistable grace. However, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it as thus: "In the OT helkein denotes a powerful impulse, as in Cant. 1:4, which is obscure but expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in Jn. 6:44; 12:32. There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic."

Some of the following individuals also make the argument that Christ's comment has to do with the faithful Jews:

â??â?¦we have here the separation of the Jewish sheep from the goats and the drawing of them to the Messiah. The ones given are Jewish disciples. They are said to be his sheep. (John 10:27). John baptized that Christ should be manifest to Israel (John 1:31). Although Israel as a whole received him not (John 1:11), he was known of his sheep (John 10:14), the epitome of which can be seen in Simeon, who was â??just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon himâ?? (Luke 2:25). â?¦ The error of the Calvinists on John 6:44 is two-fold. First and foremost is the misapplication of a verse with a decidedly Jewish context as a doctrinal statement on salvation in this age. And secondly, in a spiritual sense, there is the fallacy of making the drawing of God irresistible and equating it with salvation.â? (Laurence Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism)

â??Had they received Moses fully, thereby coming to know the Father to the degree possible at that time, they would have belonged to the Fatherâ??s flock, and the Father would have drawn them to the Son. But in rejecting Jesus, they demonstrated that they never surrendered to God in the first place, that they had set their faces like flint against all of his continued overtures. Since they did not belong to the Fatherâ??s own flock, they wouldnâ??t be part of the transfer of sheep already trusting the Father into the fold of the Son (Jn 6:37, 39).â? (Walls and Dongell, Why I am Not a Calvinist)

â??They are said to have been the Fatherâ??s i.e. as it were, the Fatherâ??s disciples, or persons â??taught by the Father,â?? John vi. 45, and so, after a sort, appropriate unto the Father, (as those that believe and are taught of Christ are said to be Christâ??s, or to belong to Christ) before they became Christâ??s apostles, or were chosen by him upon this account; and are said to have been given unto him out of the world by the Father, because they were peculiarly qualified, and as it were, characterized and marked out by the Father to be formed into apostles by his Son.â? (John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed)

â??Those who truly â??believedâ?? Mosesâ??s words, then, were under the Fatherâ??s illuminating influence, â??heard and learned of the Father;â?? were â??drawnâ?? of the Father; and so, by the Father, were â??given to Christ,â?? as his disciples, to be more fully taught the mysteries of his religion, and to be made the saving partakers of its benefits for â??this is the Fatherâ??s will which sent me, that of all which he hath given me (thus to perfect in knowledge, and to exalt in holiness,) I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again at the last day.â?? Thus we have exhibited that beautiful process in the work of God in the hearts of sincere Jews, which took place in their transit from one dispensation to another, from Moses to Christ. Taught of the Father; led into the sincere belief, and general spiritual understanding of the Scriptures as to the Messiah; when Christ appeared, they were â??drawnâ?? and â??givenâ?? to him, as the now visible and accredited Head, Teacher, Lord, and Saviour of the Church. All in this view is natural, explicit, and supported by the context; all in the Calvinistic interpretation appears forced, obscure, and inapplicable to the whole tenor of the discourse.â? (Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, Ch. 27: An Examination of Certain Passages of Scripture, Supposed to Limit the Extent of Christ's Redemption)

â??The crux of my argument will be that the set of individuals who are said by Jesus to â??belongâ?? to God as Christâ??s â??sheep,â?? to â??listen to the Father and learn from him,â?? and to be â??givenâ?? by the Father to the Son, refers not to a pre-temporally determined set of elect persons as conceived of in the Calvinist Reformed view, but instead primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were Godâ??s children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah at the time of his long-awaited appearance to the nation of Israel. These included the ones whom God had nurtured to repentance under the ministry of John the Baptist, who was appointed to â??prepare the way for the Lordâ?? (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3).â? (Robert Hamilton, The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep)

While I think it is inappropriate to say ALL of Christ's words only apply to His Jewish audience, the context of John 5-8 can certainly show this to be the case.

Please, thoughts. Thanks in advance.

[BCSpace]

Would your assessment change if the verse read....

No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just. John 6:44

This is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) which is canon to us.

LDS do not distinguish between Jews and LDS Christians. We are all adopted into the family of Abraham by accepting the gospel.

We do not accept predestination. We believe in foreordination which is we are appointed/called prior but not forced to do it. God's plans are never frustrated because He knows us well enough to have a replacement ready if something needs to be done. IIRC, the Greek word translated as predestinate in the NT can be seen either way; as foreordained or predestinate. The translators chose predestinate (incorrectly from the LDS pov that would be).

[Reklaw]

Would your assessment change if the verse read....

No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just. John 6:44

This is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) which is canon to us.

LDS do not distinguish between Jews and LDS Christians. We are all adopted into the family of Abraham by accepting the gospel.

We do not accept predestination. We believe in foreordination which is we are appointed/called prior but not forced to do it. God's plans are never frustrated because He knows us well enough to have a replacement ready if something needs to be done. IIRC, the Greek word translated as predestinate in the NT can be seen either way; as foreordained or predestinate. The translators chose predestinate (incorrectly from the LDS pov that would be).

I'm more so talking about what the text actually says rather than JST. But with the JST, it seems to fit with the verses I provided from the Book of Mormon. However, the Jewish audience idea is certainly interesting and plausible as far as I'm concerned, though I'm not completely sold on it.

[Nofear]

This is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) which is canon to us.

Quick nitpick. Technically the JST is not canon (with the exceptions of Selections from the Book of Moses and the JST Matthew in the Pearl of Great Price). No matter, we tend to accept it as correct and authoritative.

[Reklaw]

I know this might not be the most interesting forum, but I really would like some LDS perspectives on John 6.

[mfbukowski]

This is an excerpt from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) which is canon to us.

I don't want to derail the thread, but surely you recognize that we use the King James for a reason. So how does this square with JST being "canon"?

[mfbukowski]

I know this might not be the most interesting forum, but I really would like some LDS perspectives on John 6.

It might be slow going, because imo, we don't really have a firm postition on being "elect" as being "predestined" in the sense say Calvin does. Because of our belief in the pre-existence the perspective is totally different, because in the pre-existence we all had free will and chose to come here. So on one hand, we all chose to come to have an earth life and be tested, but on the other some of us are more successful than others at finding the truth. But that doesn't mean we were "predestined" to find the truth here, because we will all have another chance on the other side

We do have a sense of being "elect" in the sense that mission presidents are notorious for saying "Go out and find the elect!" or something similar, but to us that means those who are ready to accept the gospel now.

We do accept forordination which is not the same as predestination. Due to being valiant in the pre-existence, some come here having already been ordained there to some great task, but they can still fall even though they have been forordained. David is an example of one who did fall.

So because of the view that earthlife is but one portion of an eternal existence, in which we overall have and have had free will, the concepts are quite different from the usual protestant perspective. Of course other LDS may disagree, as we are wont to do!

It has been said that Family Home Evening is the only family fight which begins with a prayer, but as this forum suggests, perhaps many points of LDS doctrine include... discussion.

But we are not the only ones!

[Reklaw]

Something to add regarding the idea of "Jewish sheep":

"And verily, I say unto you again that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their iniquity that they know not of them. And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voiceâ??that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me." (3 Nephi 15:20-24)

This actually goes quite well with the following:

â??â?¦we have here the separation of the Jewish sheep from the goats and the drawing of them to the Messiah. The ones given are Jewish disciples. They are said to be his sheep. (John 10:27). John baptized that Christ should be manifest to Israel (John 1:31). Although Israel as a whole received him not (John 1:11), he was known of his sheep (John 10:14), the epitome of which can be seen in Simeon, who was â??just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon himâ?? (Luke 2:25). â?¦ The error of the Calvinists on John 6:44 is two-fold. First and foremost is the misapplication of a verse with a decidedly Jewish context as a doctrinal statement on salvation in this age. And secondly, in a spiritual sense, there is the fallacy of making the drawing of God irresistible and equating it with salvation.â? (Laurence Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism)

This to me clarifies that Christ was indeed referencing the "Jewish sheep" IE faithful Jews who would recognize Him as Messiah.