No one can come to me UNLESS the Father who sent me draws him

[tonychanyt]

Disclaimer: In this OP, I am not arguing whether or not the Father draws everyone. I am discussing the logical usage of the word "unless".

John 6:

44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

Let's try to translate the above to the first-order logic language. The trouble is that there is more than one way to express the English concept of unless. The word carries two senses.

Definition #1, the weak sense: If the Father does not draw him, he cannot come to Jesus.
⇒ If he comes to Jesus, then the Father draws him.
The Father's drawing of a person is a necessary condition. At this point, I don't know whether the Father draws everyone.

Definition #2, the strong sense: The Father does not draw him if and only if he cannot come to Jesus.
⇒ He can come to Jesus if and only if the Father draws him.
The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient.

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.

Jesus raises him up on the last day iff the Father draws him.

40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

He has eternal life iff the Father draws him.

There exists a person who does not have eternal life.

Therefore, the Father does not draw him.

According to the strong sense of the word "unless", the Father does not draw everyone. In either case, John 12:

32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

By the Cross, Jesus does draw all people to himself.

===========================================================================
Appendix 1

Sometimes, the context tells us which sense is being used. Let's apply these two senses to 2 Timothy 2:

5 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.

1. If he does not compete according to the rules, he is not crowned.
   Method 1 (weak sense of unless) is a valid interpretation.
2. He does not compete according to the rules if and only if he is not crowned.
   ⇒ If he is not crowned, then he does not compete according to the rules.
   ⇒ If he competes according to the rules, then he is crowned.

Method 2 implies that competing according to the rules is a sufficient condition for crowning. This is not true. Method 2 is not a valid interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:5.

===========================================================================
Appendix 2

Young's Literal Translation, John 6:44

no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day;

ἐὰν μὴ
if not

draws
ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1670: To drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe. Or helko hel'-ko; probably akin to haireomai; to drag.

BDAG:

ⓒ w. other particles
α. ἐὰν καί even if Gal 6:1; likew. ἐὰν δὲ καί (POxy 472 II, 7) but if 1 Cor 7:11, 28; 2 Ti 2:5. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ παρακούσῃ but if the pers. refuses to listen Mt 18:17.
β. ἐὰν μή if not, unless w. pres. subj. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ ἀξία Mt 10:13; cp. Lk 13:3; J 3:2f, 5, 27. Mostly w. aor. subj. ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ Mt 5:20; 6:15; 12:29; 18:3; 21:21; Mk 3:27; 4:22 (s. KBeyer, Semitische Syntax im NT, ’62, 131); J 4:48; 6:44; 7:51; Ro 10:15; 1 Cor 9:16; 14:6; unless, without ἐὰν μὴ αὐτὸ πίω Mt 26:42. W. fut. ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσουσιν Rv 2:22.

Biblehub listed 30 translations out of 51 use the word "unless" to translate ἐὰν μὴ with aorist subjunctive. In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

 

[Water and Fire]

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


People don't choose to not believe in Christ.... they just can't, because the father has not revealed him to them.

 

[awstar]

Song of Songs 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

Jeremiah 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Hosea 11:4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

God drawing humans seems to be equated with God loving humans. But humans cannot draw near to God without being consumed by his glory, anymore than humans can draw near to the sun without becoming toast. We need an intermediary who can be God to us, and us to God, without being consumed by overwhelming righteousness and justice. Jesus can draw all humans, but only because it is through Him that God is drawing all humans by love.

 

[tonychanyt]

People don't choose to not believe in Christ.... they just can't, because the father has not revealed him to them.

Check out Does God want to save everyone? and follow up there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Disclaimer: In this OP, I am not arguing whether or not the Father draws everyone. I am discussing the logical usage of the word "unless".

John 6:


Let's try to translate the above to the first-order logic language. The trouble is that there is more than one way to express the English concept of unless. The word carries two senses.

Definition #1, the weak sense: If the Father does not draw him, he cannot come to Jesus.
⇒ If he comes to Jesus, then the Father draws him.
The Father's drawing of a person is a necessary condition. At this point, I don't know whether the Father draws everyone.

Definition #2, the strong sense: The Father does not draw him if and only if he cannot come to Jesus.
⇒ He can come to Jesus if and only if the Father draws him.
The Father's drawing of a person is both necessary and sufficient.

John 6:


Jesus raises him up on the last day iff the Father draws him.


He has eternal life iff the Father draws him.

There exists a person who does not have eternal life.

Therefore, the Father does not draw him.

According to the strong sense of the word "unless", the Father does not draw everyone. In either case, John 12:


By the Cross, Jesus does draw all people to himself.

===========================================================================
Appendix 1

Sometimes, the context tells us which sense is being used. Let's apply these two senses to 2 Timothy 2:

1. If he does not compete according to the rules, he is not crowned.
   Method 1 (weak sense of unless) is a valid interpretation.
2. He does not compete according to the rules if and only if he is not crowned.
   ⇒ If he is not crowned, then he does not compete according to the rules.
   ⇒ If he competes according to the rules, then he is crowned.

Method 2 implies that competing according to the rules is a sufficient condition for crowning. This is not true. Method 2 is not a valid interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:5.

===========================================================================
Appendix 2

Young's Literal Translation, John 6:44


ἐὰν μὴ
if not

draws
ἑλκύσῃ (helkysē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1670: To drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe. Or helko hel'-ko; probably akin to haireomai; to drag.

BDAG:


Biblehub listed 30 translations out of 51 use the word "unless" to translate ἐὰν μὴ with aorist subjunctive. In this case, it is not just ἐὰν μὴ; it is ἐὰν μὴ followed by an Aorist Subjunctive verb. This pattern has been observed frequently enough that some experts believe that this pattern is the equivalent of the English concept of "unless".

In neither case, is the implication made, that there is NO sense in which God does draw some, even draw them toward Christ, that are NOT effectually drawn.

There is, perhaps, some reason via the Biblical meaning of "drag", or "irresistible drawing", to take the verse to be referring to only effectual drawing. But if so, it still does not deny the possibility of an ineffectual drawing, but rather, only that the verse is REFERRING TO effectual drawing.

 

[tonychanyt]

In neither case, is the implication made, that there is NO sense in which God does draw some, even draw them toward Christ, that are NOT effectually drawn.

According to First-Order Logic, John 6:44 does not imply anything about effectually drawing because the word "effectual" is not there.

There is, perhaps, some reason via the Biblical meaning of "drag", or "irresistible drawing", to take the verse to be referring to only effectual drawing.

That's a possible interpretation.

But if so, it still does not deny the possibility of an ineffectual drawing, but rather, only that the verse is REFERRING TO effectual drawing.

Keen observation

Have you taken a university course on FOL?

 

[Mark Quayle]

According to First-Order Logic, John 6:44 does not imply anything about effectually drawing because the word "effectual" is not there.

I should think it more accurate to say that effectual drawing is not implied in FOL, or not included in a FOL consideration of the text —the way you put it —"according to FOL"— sounds like FOL disallows it.


Mark Quayle said:
But if so, it still does not deny the possibility of an ineffectual drawing, but rather, only that the verse is REFERRING TO effectual drawing.

Keen observation

Have you taken a university course on FOL?

Ha! No, though from my EET associates degree (1976) I recall words like, Ladder Logic (which I still use in TTL and Relays, industrial controls), Boolean Algebra, Karnaugh Maps, and a few other related things. Also, my upbringing included a lot of mechanical thinking, and in my family consideration of implications (both mechanical and linguistic) was always promoted, and lazy thinking was scorned.

 

[tonychanyt]

I should think it more accurate to say that effectual drawing is not implied in FOL, or not included in a FOL consideration of the text —the way you put it —"according to FOL"— sounds like FOL disallows it.

Good point

Also, my upbringing included a lot of mechanical thinking, and in my family consideration of implications (both mechanical and linguistic) was always promoted

You are a natural logical thinker.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good point


You are a natural logical thinker.

Ha! You should have asked my wife about that, when she was alive. A friend who did handwriting analysis for the FBI analyzed ours soon after we were married, and said the same thing, and she said he had us all backwards! (Yes, if that's what you are thinking —she was one who had to think in concrete terms.)

 

[Water and Fire]

Check out Does God want to save everyone? and follow up there.

Yeah, I had a quick look.

What I was getting at, is that someone cannot believe in Christ unless it is given to them to believe, so why would the burn in hell for it?

 

[tonychanyt]

What I was getting at, is that someone cannot believe in Christ unless it is given to them to believe, so why would the burn in hell for it?

Good question.

I propose the concept of Co-Reality to account for that. From the vertical point of view, God is responsible for drawing a person. Horizontally, a person is responsible for repenting.

See also Do we choose to repent?

 

[Water and Fire]

Good question.

I propose the concept of Co-Reality to account for that. From the vertical point of view, God is responsible for drawing a person. Horizontally, a person is responsible for repenting.

See also Do we choose to repent?

Scripture is very clear about the fact that God stops some people from understanding or even doing what is right.


Isa 63:17 O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.


Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.


Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

 

[tonychanyt]

Scripture is very clear about the fact that God stops some people from understanding or even doing what is right.

Sure. So are people responsible?

 

[Water and Fire]

Sure. So are people responsible?

Nope.

 

[tonychanyt]

Nope.

Are people responsible for being sent to hell for eternal torment?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah, I had a quick look.

What I was getting at, is that someone cannot believe in Christ unless it is given to them to believe, so why would the burn in hell for it?

They burn in hell for disobedience, rebellion. It is who they are, what they are, and what they do.

We would all do the same, but for God being merciful to whom he will show mercy.

 

[Water and Fire]

Are people responsible for being sent to hell for eternal torment?

Impossible... such a place does not exist.

 

[Water and Fire]

They burn in hell for disobedience, rebellion. It is who they are, what they are, and what they do.

We would all do the same, but for God being merciful to whom he will show mercy.

No one is doing anything of the sort.

 

[tonychanyt]

Impossible... such a place does not exist.

So what will happen to those people who are not going to heaven?