Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity
A Critique of Reformed Theology
Total Depravity: John 6:44: Man's Inability
John 6:44 states,
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…”
Dr Van Lees interprets this scripture thusly,
“This statement begins with a universal negative, "No one can come to Me. . . ." and also, “Jesus said that no one has the ability to come to Him on their own.” Van Lees expounds on this when he says, “This is what Jesus was addressing when He said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . . " Fallen man may look at Jesus and be impressed with his moral teaching; he may think that Jesus is interesting, but, apart from God's divine initiative, he will never come to Christ for salvation. He has no desire to submit to God or to believe the gospel; he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ.”
Another aspect of the Reformed understanding involves the concept that the “drawing” is irresistible and the person being drawn does not REALLY have a choice. They are “compelled by irresistible superiority.” Again, from Dr. Van Lees,
“Everyone that is drawn by the Father will come. It was not merely an enticement or encouragement to come. Second, the Greek word translated as "draw" is elko. Gerhard Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines elko as "to compel by irresistible superiority. The linguistic and lexicographical meaning of elko is "to compel (Kittel, Vol. 2, p. 503).”
If all we had were verses 43-51 I confess that I would be hard pressed to refute the Reformed interpretation given above. But as usual, misinterpretation, Reformed or otherwise, is usually due to not taking the entire immediate context into account. The Reformed understanding of this text does not take into account the explanation that the writer of the account himself gives. In verse 65 it says, “And He was saying, ‘FOR THIS REASON I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.’”
Two questions need to be answered.
1) Who is the “you” that Jesus is referring to?
2) What is the “for this reason” that Jesus said what He did to “you”?
Both questions are answered by the realization that the “you” are the disciples, and the reason Jesus was saying, “…that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father” was because many of the disciples were grumbling, saying, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” (Verse 60) The difficult statement was, “He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me and I in him.” (Verse 56) Jesus was saying that those who were around Him, physically, while He was ministering on the earth, were drawn to His physical person by the Father and were His disciples because the Father had granted it or had drawn them. Even the grumblers. The grumbling disciples being spoken of are not the 12, but were “many” (verse 60). Being drawn by the Father is NOT equated with eternal life. Believing is equated with eternal life (verse 47). Verse 64, 65: “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe [PLURAL], and who it was that would betray Him [SINGULAR]. And He was saying, ‘FOR THIS REASON I have said to you, that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
ALL those who were disciples of Jesus had been drawn, even those who did not believe, and even he who was going to betray him. Dr. Van Lees’ grammatical argument from the Greek word “elko” is problematic. The problem is Van Lees applies it universally and he applies it to salvation. Jesus did not apply it universally to all people everywhere in all times; He applied it to the disciples who were following Him in His earthly ministry. Neither does Jesus equate being drawn with eternal life. He equates believing with eternal life.
Verse 66-67: “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”
Many disciples “withdrew.” How could they withdraw if they hadn’t been drawn in the first place? This tells us that the drawing, though compelling, is not necessarily effectual or irresistible. Many had been drawn, but they did not believe, and so when Jesus spoke a hard saying, it says that they withdrew and were “NOT WALKING WITH HIM ANYMORE.” This tells us that the compelling drawing (elko) was to physically follow Jesus around, to WALK with Him, NOT an irresistible, monergistic, effectual drawing to eternal life. Verse 67 tells us that the disciples who did not believe and withdrew were NOT any of the twelve.
In verse 70 Jesus says, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” Here Jesus is saying that even Judas was “chosen” – Judas had been drawn. Therefore, "drawn" does NOT equal "saved." He is speaking in the context of ALL those who had been drawn, but he distinguishes the 12 from the rest.
Van Lees equates the drawing with eternal life and he applies the drawing universally. Neither of these assumptions can be supported from the context. The context tells us the drawing was to the physical person of Christ, and it was a drawing to be His disciple during His earthly ministry.
One last point. Verse 44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…”
In verse 65 Jesus paraphrases HIMSELF: “…no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
There is a striking difference in content between Van Lee's definition of “draws” and the commonly understood meaning of “granted.” Yet Jesus is obviously referring to His previous statement where He said, “draws” when He says, “…I HAVE SAID TO YOU, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted…”
Maybe we should take Jesus’ word over Van Lee’s Theological Dictionary when it comes to what, exactly, Jesus meant when He said, “draws.” He used the word, “granted” interchangeably with, “draws.” Does it make sense to say that the word, “granted” involves the notion of being “compelled by irresistible superiority”? I think not. Therefore, being “compelled by irresistible superiority” is NOT what Jesus had in mind when He used the word, “draws.”
From this I must conclude that doing an etymological study on the word “draws” (elko) to support a doctrinal belief not stated in the immediate context is an over-exegesis. Especially since Jesus apparently said “draws” one time and then used the word, “granted” when referring to “draws”. Jesus Himself didn’t make a distinction between “draws” and “granted.” Apparently it wasn’t that big a deal to Him whether a person was “drawn” or “granted.” He used the words interchangeably, therefore they are at least synonymous - in Jesus' mind, anyway.
And so, when Dr. Van Lees says, (quote) “This is what Jesus was addressing when He said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . . " Fallen man may look at Jesus and be impressed with his moral teaching; he may think that Jesus is interesting, but, apart from God's divine initiative, he will never come to Christ for salvation. He has no desire to submit to God or to believe the gospel; he lacks the moral ability to come to Christ” (close quote) - he is flat-out wrong! What Jesus was addressing were the disciples who were drawn to follow Him in His earthly ministry. Dr. Van Lees’ position, which is illustrative of the Reformed position in general, COMPLETELY ignores the immediate context, and ignores the explanation given in the text itself, and eisegetes the notion that the compelling drawing is to eternal life. The immediate context says, “he who believes has eternal life.” Peter sums it up when he says in verse 69: “We have BELIEVED and come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”