Does God Choose Us or Do We Choose Him? Let’s Talk Predestination

[David]

Let’s open up a real discussion on what the Bible teaches about predestination. This is not about tradition, philosophy, or what we want to be true, it’s about what the Word of God actually says.

Ephesians 1:4–5 says God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” and “predestinated us unto the adoption of children.” Romans 8:29–30 clearly lays out that those whom He foreknew, He predestined, called, justified, and glorified. This shows a plan from God that begins before we were even born.

But then John 3:16 tells us “whosoever believeth in him should not perish,” and Romans 10:13 says, “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” So how do we reconcile these verses?

Some believe predestination means God sovereignly chooses who will be saved, not based on anything they’ve done. Others argue that God’s foreknowledge means He looks ahead and sees who will believe, and then predestines them based on their choice.

So let’s debate this biblically. Not what sounds good or feels fair, but what God’s Word actually says. Use Scripture in context. No human systems, no church history, just the Bible.

Where do you stand?

• Is predestination unconditional, based only on God's will?
• Or is it conditional, based on God foreseeing our faith?
• Can both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility coexist?

Let’s go to the Word.

 

[David]

The debate about predestination among those who claim Scripture follows fuels passionate discussions yet the essential question remains what the Bible explicitly declares. Ephesians 1: The verses Ephesians 1:4–5 reveal God selected us before the world began and predestined us to become adopted children through Jesus Christ, which means His choice was independent of our actions and based solely on His purpose and grace. Romans 8: Romans 8:29–30 explicitly lists those whom God foreknew as people He also predestinated and called and justified and glorified. This demonstrates God’s sovereign control over salvation rather than random selection or injustice. His actions demonstrate His sovereign plan as He operates according to His own intentions.

But here’s where people argue. Some say predestination violates free will. Their argument suggests God’s love should extend to all because choosing only some violates their understanding of love. The mistake in this argument is that it bases itself on human emotions rather than divine scripture. The Bible says in Romans 9: Romans 9:15–16 explains how God's mercy operates independently of human will or actions since God alone determines who receives His mercy. God's justice remains intact even if He decided to save no one. God’s act of saving any person shows His mercy. The Bible assigns responsibility to mankind. In John 3: According to John 3:18 individuals who reject faith will face condemnation because they fail to believe. Scripture teaches us two truths which exist together: God makes choices and man bears responsibility.

This is where people split. To reconcile God’s control with human accountability certain individuals choose to weaken one aspect or another. But Scripture doesn’t do that. The Bible presents God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in a straightforward manner that we should accept without alteration. Deuteronomy 29: According to Deuteronomy 29:29 God keeps the secret things while revealing certain things to us and we should accept His Word without forcing it to match our understanding. When we discuss predestination we learn more about our perception of God rather than our comprehension. We face the fundamental question of whether our obedience will be towards Scripture’s authority or towards reshaping it according to human logic.

 

[NeutralZone]

Let’s open up a real discussion on what the Bible teaches about predestination. This is not about tradition, philosophy, or what we want to be true, it’s about what the Word of God actually says.

Ephesians 1:4–5 says God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” and “predestinated us unto the adoption of children.” Romans 8:29–30 clearly lays out that those whom He foreknew, He predestined, called, justified, and glorified. This shows a plan from God that begins before we were even born.

No such word as "predestination" in the Bible. The correct expression is "chose."

Mind you, there are a few Bible translations that use the word predestination at Ephesians 1:4. But in every instance, it is a translator's error where translators purposely attempt to push their false doctrines.

 

[David]

No such word as "predestination" in the Bible. The correct expression is "chose."

Mind you, there are a few Bible translations that use the word predestination at Ephesians 1:4. But in every instance, it is a translator's error where translators purposely attempt to push their false doctrines.

I’m glad that you’re being careful about word choice in translation, that is important when it comes to the Word of God. However, “predestinated” is not a mistranslation in this verse. It’s right there in the Bible. The Greek word translated here is proorizō, which means “to decide beforehand,” “to predetermine.” That’s exactly what the English word “predestinate” means. The translators didn’t stick in a word to shoehorn a doctrine. They put a word that is inspired by God.

Here’s Ephesians 1:5. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Here’s Romans 8:30. “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified.” This is very clear language. God predestinated us, chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1: 4), and that’s not something we need to explain away, it’s something to marvel at.

Yes, people must believe the gospel. Yes, our choices are important. The Bible teaches both God’s sovereign purposes and man’s responsibility. But it does not teach that God arbitrarily elects us against our will. When faced with clear Scripture, we shouldn’t let our presuppositions define God’s Word for us. We should let His Word shape and define us, so that we can better understand. Let’s keep reading the Word together, with our hearts open, and let God’s Word speak for itself.

Just curious as to what false doctrines are being pushed.

 

[NeutralZone]

I’m glad that you’re being careful about word choice in translation, that is important when it comes to the Word of God. However, “predestinated” is not a mistranslation in this verse. It’s right there in the Bible. The Greek word translated here is proorizō, which means “to decide beforehand,” “to predetermine.” That’s exactly what the English word “predestinate” means. The translators didn’t stick in a word to shoehorn a doctrine. They put a word that is inspired by God.

Here’s Ephesians 1:5. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Here’s Romans 8:30. “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified.” This is very clear language. God predestinated us, chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1: 4), and that’s not something we need to explain away, it’s something to marvel at.

Yes, people must believe the gospel. Yes, our choices are important. The Bible teaches both God’s sovereign purposes and man’s responsibility. But it does not teach that God arbitrarily elects us against our will. When faced with clear Scripture, we shouldn’t let our presuppositions define God’s Word for us. We should let His Word shape and define us, so that we can better understand. Let’s keep reading the Word together, with our hearts open, and let God’s Word speak for itself.

Just curious as to what false doctrines are being pushed.

It appears you believe the words predestinate and predetermine have the same meaning. In reality, they do not.

We will just have to disagree on that.

 

[NeutralZone]

Just curious as to what false doctrines are being pushed.

Are you kidding me? I guess you haven't debated at other websites where people post their beliefs. Below are just a few.

1. God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and god's holy spirit are three separate persons combined into a single "godhead").

2. Humans have an immortal soul that survives the person's physical death.

3. The wicked will literally burn in hellfire forever.

4. All good people go to heaven.

5. The earth will be destroyed.


The above are among the most popular. There are many, many more.

 

[David]

Are you kidding me? I guess you haven't debated at other websites where people post their beliefs. Below are just a few.

1. God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and god's holy spirit are three separate persons combined into a single "godhead").

2. Humans have an immortal soul that survives the person's physical death.

3. The wicked will literally burn in hellfire forever.

4. All good people go to heaven.

5. The earth will be destroyed.


The above are among the most popular. There are many, many more.

Thanks for your reply, but I think there’s been some confusion. I never mentioned any of the five doctrines you listed. I wasn’t debating the Trinity, the soul, hell, heaven, or the fate of the earth. I was responding specifically to your claim that the word predestinate in Ephesians 1:4–5 is a translator’s error used to push false doctrine. That’s a serious accusation to make about people faithfully translating the Word of God. The Greek word proorizō literally means “to determine beforehand.” It appears in Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:29–30. That’s not bias or manipulation, that’s just honest translation. If someone reads “predestinate” in the text and jumps to an unbiblical doctrine, that’s a separate issue. But the word itself is accurate and belongs there. So again I’ll ask, what false doctrine did I push? I quoted the verse, gave the original Greek meaning, and affirmed that God’s Word speaks clearly. I also said man must believe the gospel and that God doesn't override the will. If there’s something false in that, then please show me from Scripture. If not, let’s stay focused on what the Bible actually says.

PS: I want to just make a personal side note here: I have been involved in biblical debates for years and years on countless websites. I am not new to this at all. I have seen every side of the spectrum. And I still stand by what the Bible actually says.

 

[NeutralZone]

Thanks for your reply, but I think there’s been some confusion. I never mentioned any of the five doctrines you listed. I wasn’t debating the Trinity, the soul, hell, heaven, or the fate of the earth. . . . So again I’ll ask, what false doctrine did I push? I quoted the verse, gave the original Greek meaning, and affirmed that God’s Word speaks clearly. I also said man must believe the gospel and that God doesn't override the will. If there’s something false in that, then please show me from Scripture. If not, let’s stay focused on what the Bible actually says.

You're right. There's definitely some confusion, because at no time did I say that you pushed any false doctrines. At Post #3, I said the following about Bible translators:

No such word as "predestination" in the Bible. The correct expression is "chose."

Mind you, there are a few Bible translations that use the word predestination at Ephesians 1:4. But in every instance, it is a translator's error where translators purposely attempt to push their false doctrines.

You then responded as follows at Post #4

Just curious as to what false doctrines are being pushed.

I then gave you a few examples of the false doctrines being pushed by some Bible translators.

I don't think you produced any Bible translations. So my response at Post #6, where I provided five examples of the false doctrines being pushed by Bible translators, did not apply to you. I can't understand how you came to that conclusion.

 

[NeutralZone]

Thanks for your reply, but I think there’s been some confusion. I never mentioned any of the five doctrines you listed. I wasn’t debating the Trinity, the soul, hell, heaven, or the fate of the earth. I was responding specifically to your claim that the word predestinate in Ephesians 1:4–5 is a translator’s error used to push false doctrine. That’s a serious accusation to make about people faithfully translating the Word of God. The Greek word proorizō literally means “to determine beforehand.” It appears in Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:29–30. That’s not bias or manipulation, that’s just honest translation. If someone reads “predestinate” in the text and jumps to an unbiblical doctrine, that’s a separate issue. But the word itself is accurate and belongs there. So again I’ll ask, what false doctrine did I push? I quoted the verse, gave the original Greek meaning, and affirmed that God’s Word speaks clearly. I also said man must believe the gospel and that God doesn't override the will. If there’s something false in that, then please show me from Scripture. If not, let’s stay focused on what the Bible actually says.

PS: I want to just make a personal side note here: I have been involved in biblical debates for years and years on countless websites. I am not new to this at all. I have seen every side of the spectrum. And I still stand by what the Bible actually says.

Since you continue to insist that predestinate and predetermine have the same meaning, I will leave that topic alone. We are not going to agree on that.

 

[David]

Since you continue to insist that predestinate and predetermine have the same meaning, I will leave that topic alone. We are not going to agree on that.

You said: “Since you continue to insist that predestinate and predetermine have the same meaning, I will leave that topic alone.”

Ok, but let’s clear that up. I never said “predestinate and predetermine have the same meaning” as an across-the-board-statement of English usage. What I said, is that the Greek word proorizō as used in Ephesians 1: 5 and Romans 8:29–30 literally means “to decide beforehand,” “to predetermine.” That’s not an opinion or a doctrine, that’s just what the word means. Translators didn’t put a doctrine in the text, they translated a word. In this biblical context, the word “predestinate” is an accurate translation of proorizō.

So if you’re objecting to that word being in the Bible, your objection is not to me but to the original Greek text and to those who translated it faithfully. I’m simply quoting what’s already there, and letting Scripture speak.

If you want to argue that the word “predestinate” and “predetermine” are different things in your thinking, go ahead and explain why. But don’t put words in my mouth or misrepresent what I said. Let’s not play games when we’re dealing with the Word of God.

 

[David]

You're right. There's definitely some confusion, because at no time did I say that you pushed any false doctrines. At Post #3, I said the following about Bible translators:



You then responded as follows at Post #4


I then gave you a few examples of the false doctrines being pushed by some Bible translators.

I don't think you produced any Bible translations. So my response at Post #6, where I provided five examples of the false doctrines being pushed by Bible translators, did not apply to you. I can't understand how you came to that conclusion.

I believe you are avoiding the original point. In your post you asserted that “predestinate” in Ephesians 1: 4–5 was an error of translation and further alleged it was inserted to “push false doctrines.” That is an incredible allegation; and in response, I asked a very reasonable question: Exactly what false doctrines are being pushed?

You now claim your response in Post #6 “did not apply” to me because I am not a Bible translator. However, I never said I was one. I was answering your public charge that Bible translators were corrupting God’s Word. And because I was quoting from the translation you were specifically and directly attacking, I was more than entitled to ask you to identify the doctrines they were “pushing.”

Let me be blunt: I did not misquote you. I answered you. You made an allegation of corruption in God’s Word in translation and I simply questioned you to provide proof of that. If you didn’t mean to say that those who translated Ephesians 1: 5 were in fact corrupting the text, then say so. But do not suggest I misunderstood you when in fact I was calling your charge into question. I am seeking truth not evasion. So let’s deal with the text–Greek, English, and Scripture, as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Please answer:

Exactly which Bible translations are you charging with corrupting the text?

Who are these translators?

Exactly where in their translations will those false doctrines that you listed in Post #6 be found?

If you are going to make such a blanket charge, then at the very least back it up with Scripture and facts. Quote the verses, name the versions, and point out exactly how they have inserted the false doctrines. Otherwise, it sounds like you are merely hurling unfounded accusations against faithful translators with nothing but your own word to support you.

 

[acex87]

If we approach this topic from a logical standpoint, we cannot truly have agency if everything is predetermined. With no agency, there can be no accountability.

"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

Repentance is meaningless if one cannot choose otherwise. Jesus treats agency as self-evident in this passage.

Jesus also held people accountable, assigning blame or praise based on response.

"You refuse to come to me that you may have life." John 5:40

Jesus lamented over Jerusalem:

"How often I wanted to gather your children together...but you were not willing." Matthew 23:37

There is no mention of terms such as 'chosen' 'decreed' nor any sense of predestination. Only unwillingness, which is agency.

Jesus parables often present circumstances of choice, such as Matthew 25, concerning the burying of the talents. The son who changed his mind in Matthew 21. The rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, which depicts consequences for the choices of the rich man. Or Matthew 22, the wedding feast to which guests refused invitations.

All of these are depictions of agency in one form or another.

Jesus does acknowledge foreknowledge and prophesy--but never in a way that overrides agency.

For example Judas,

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed." Matthew 26:24

Here, although the outcome is known, the agent remains responsible for his choice. Note that foreknowledge is an awareness of the outcome, not an enforcement of said outcome.

Jesus teaches:
-Love your enemies
-Forgive freely
-Turn the other cheek
-Bear good fruit
-Be judged by your deeds

None of these would be coherent under a strict predestination framework.

"By their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:16

Fruit implies cultivation, effort, decision, restraint; not mechanical inevitability.

-Jonathan

 

[David]

If we approach this topic from a logical standpoint, we cannot truly have agency if everything is predetermined. With no agency, there can be no accountability.

"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

Repentance is meaningless if one cannot choose otherwise. Jesus treats agency as self-evident in this passage.

Jesus also held people accountable, assigning blame or praise based on response.

"You refuse to come to me that you may have life." John 5:40

Jesus lamented over Jerusalem:

"How often I wanted to gather your children together...but you were not willing." Matthew 23:37

There is no mention of terms such as 'chosen' 'decreed' nor any sense of predestination. Only unwillingness, which is agency.

Jesus parables often present circumstances of choice, such as Matthew 25, concerning the burying of the talents. The son who changed his mind in Matthew 21. The rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, which depicts consequences for the choices of the rich man. Or Matthew 22, the wedding feast to which guests refused invitations.

All of these are depictions of agency in one form or another.

Jesus does acknowledge foreknowledge and prophesy--but never in a way that overrides agency.

For example Judas,

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed." Matthew 26:24

Here, although the outcome is known, the agent remains responsible for his choice. Note that foreknowledge is an awareness of the outcome, not an enforcement of said outcome.

Jesus teaches:
-Love your enemies
-Forgive freely
-Turn the other cheek
-Bear good fruit
-Be judged by your deeds

None of these would be coherent under a strict predestination framework.

"By their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:16

Fruit implies cultivation, effort, decision, restraint; not mechanical inevitability.

-Jonathan

You are arguing for agency, and Scripture does affirm responsibility. But you are quietly inserting something else along the way. You are making man the final cause. That is the real issue.

You say repentance is meaningless if man cannot choose otherwise. Scripture never says repentance exists to protect man’s sense of control. Scripture says repentance exists to vindicate God’s righteousness. God commands repentance because He is holy, not because man is able. God now commandeth all men every where to repent ~Acts 17:30. A command does not imply ability. It establishes obligation.

You say Jesus treats agency as self-evident. He does not. Jesus treats guilt as self-evident. Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life ~John 5:40. That is not a statement of freedom. It is an indictment of the heart. And the same Christ also says, without qualification, no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him ~John 6:44. Both statements stand. You are trying to silence one to protect the other.

You appeal to Matthew 23:37, but you hear emotion and miss authority. Christ weeps over Jerusalem while standing as her Judge. Their unwillingness condemns them. It does not enthrone them. Scripture already told you why they were unwilling. They stumbled at that stumblingstone ~Romans 9:32. And why did they stumble. As it is written ~Romans 9:33. God was not surprised by their rejection. He was glorified through it.

You appeal to parables about stewardship and choices, but every one of them assumes something deeper. The servant buried the talent because he had a false view of his master. The guests refused the invitation because they loved other things more. The fruit was bad because the tree was bad. Jesus said so when He said a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit ~Matthew 7:17. You keep focusing on decisions while ignoring nature. Scripture begins with the heart.

You raise Judas as proof that foreknowledge does not enforce outcome. Scripture says more than foreknowledge. This scripture must needs have been fulfilled ~Acts 1:16. Not might. Must. Judas is still guilty. Why. Because God is righteous and Judas loved his sin. Sovereignty did not excuse him. It exposed him.

You claim Jesus never teaches choosing. He does, plainly and repeatedly. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ~John 15:16. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ~John 6:37. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed ~Acts 13:48. These texts do not vanish because they are inconvenient. They demand explanation.

Here is the heart of the matter. You want a system where man retains the final word so God remains safe, manageable, and fair by human standards. Scripture will not permit that. Salvation is not about preserving man’s dignity. It is about magnifying God’s mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy ~Romans 9:16.

God is not reacting to man. God is reigning. Grace is not a reward. It is mercy. Faith is not a contribution. It is a gift. Salvation is not a partnership. It is a rescue.

Why does this offend you? Is it because it strips you? Is it because it humbles you? Is it because it leaves God alone on the throne?

This is not a debate about philosophy. This is a question of worship.

Will you bow to a God who owes you nothing, or will you keep defending a system that protects your pride?

Repent of measuring God by man. Submit to Christ as Lord. Not because it feels fair. But because He is worthy.

 

[acex87]

You are arguing for agency, and Scripture does affirm responsibility. But you are quietly inserting something else along the way. You are making man the final cause. That is the real issue.

You say repentance is meaningless if man cannot choose otherwise. Scripture never says repentance exists to protect man’s sense of control. Scripture says repentance exists to vindicate God’s righteousness. God commands repentance because He is holy, not because man is able. God now commandeth all men every where to repent ~Acts 17:30. A command does not imply ability. It establishes obligation.

You say Jesus treats agency as self-evident. He does not. Jesus treats guilt as self-evident. Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life ~John 5:40. That is not a statement of freedom. It is an indictment of the heart. And the same Christ also says, without qualification, no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him ~John 6:44. Both statements stand. You are trying to silence one to protect the other.

You appeal to Matthew 23:37, but you hear emotion and miss authority. Christ weeps over Jerusalem while standing as her Judge. Their unwillingness condemns them. It does not enthrone them. Scripture already told you why they were unwilling. They stumbled at that stumblingstone ~Romans 9:32. And why did they stumble. As it is written ~Romans 9:33. God was not surprised by their rejection. He was glorified through it.

You appeal to parables about stewardship and choices, but every one of them assumes something deeper. The servant buried the talent because he had a false view of his master. The guests refused the invitation because they loved other things more. The fruit was bad because the tree was bad. Jesus said so when He said a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit ~Matthew 7:17. You keep focusing on decisions while ignoring nature. Scripture begins with the heart.

You raise Judas as proof that foreknowledge does not enforce outcome. Scripture says more than foreknowledge. This scripture must needs have been fulfilled ~Acts 1:16. Not might. Must. Judas is still guilty. Why. Because God is righteous and Judas loved his sin. Sovereignty did not excuse him. It exposed him.

You claim Jesus never teaches choosing. He does, plainly and repeatedly. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ~John 15:16. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ~John 6:37. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed ~Acts 13:48. These texts do not vanish because they are inconvenient. They demand explanation.

Here is the heart of the matter. You want a system where man retains the final word so God remains safe, manageable, and fair by human standards. Scripture will not permit that. Salvation is not about preserving man’s dignity. It is about magnifying God’s mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy ~Romans 9:16.

God is not reacting to man. God is reigning. Grace is not a reward. It is mercy. Faith is not a contribution. It is a gift. Salvation is not a partnership. It is a rescue.

Why does this offend you? Is it because it strips you? Is it because it humbles you? Is it because it leaves God alone on the throne?

This is not a debate about philosophy. This is a question of worship.

Will you bow to a God who owes you nothing, or will you keep defending a system that protects your pride?

Repent of measuring God by man. Submit to Christ as Lord. Not because it feels fair. But because He is worthy.

David,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I genuinely want this to be a constructive exchange, and I’m not here to score points—just to keep our conclusions tethered to what Jesus actually teaches and assumes. If I’m wrong, I want to be corrected by the text. At the same time, I’m trying to be careful not to import conclusions onto Jesus that Jesus himself doesn’t state.

1) On “sovereignty” and “final cause”​

I’m not arguing that man is the “final cause” in some ultimate, God-excluding sense. I’m arguing what Jesus consistently assumes in his own teaching: God initiates, and humans meaningfully respond—and Jesus holds people accountable for that response.

For example:

• “You refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (John 5:40)
• “How often I wanted to gather your children… and you were not willing.” (Matt 23:37 / Luke 13:34)

Whatever else we say, Jesus places the moral weight on refusal and unwillingness. That’s not me making man sovereign; that’s me refusing to soften Jesus’ own moral language.

2) On repentance being “about God’s righteousness” rather than a real summons​

I agree God is righteous. But Jesus presents repentance as a genuine call with genuine alternatives:

• “Repent…” (Matt 4:17)
• “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3,5)

Jesus doesn’t speak as though repentance is merely a judicial formality used to justify condemnation. He speaks as though repentance is a real turning that people can resist—and he grieves that resistance (Matt 23:37).

3) The crux: John 6:44, John 12:32, and the Greek for “draw”​

This is the main point I’m trying to clarify, because I think our disagreement hinges here.

John 6:44 says:

• “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…”

The verb translated “draw” is ἑλκύω (helkō). The important thing is that this word does not inherently mean “override the will” or “irresistibly compel.” It can mean to draw, attract, pull, and the context determines whether it’s coercive or invitational.

Now here’s the key: Jesus uses the same “draw” language again in a way that defines the scope:

• “And I, when I am lifted up, will draw (helkō) all people to myself.” (John 12:32)

That forces a very simple question from the text:

If “draw” in John 6 must mean “force/override/irresistible,” then John 12 implies Jesus will irresistibly force all people to himself—which would erase the meaningfulness of Jesus’ repeated moral categories like “refuse,” “not willing,” “won’t come,” etc. (John 5:40; Matt 23:37).

But Jesus clearly treats resistance as real:

• “You refuse to come…” (John 5:40)
• “You were not willing…” (Matt 23:37)

So I’m not denying divine initiative—John 6:44 plainly teaches it. I’m saying: Jesus’ own use of ἑλκύω alongside “all people” (John 12:32) strongly argues against reading John 6:44 as coercion or irresistible override. “Drawing” is real divine initiative that can be resisted, because Jesus himself describes people resisting.

And here’s the part I want to say gently but clearly: the conclusions that “drawing guarantees coming,” or that it is selectively given in a way that makes response impossible for others—Jesus never states those conclusions in these passages. They have to be added.

4) On parables, heart, and responsibility​

I agree with you that the heart matters; Jesus teaches that constantly. But he also speaks as though the heart is morally responsive to truth—people can harden, resist, or receive.

• “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them…” (Matt 7:24–27)
• “By their fruits you will know them.” (Matt 7:16–20)

Jesus’ parables regularly evaluate people as responsible agents responding to invitations, warnings, light, and truth. If we interpret those evaluations as addressing people who never had any meaningful capacity to respond unless selectively overridden, we end up undermining Jesus’ own moral framework for accountability.

The principle i am trying to preserve is as follows:

Jesus interprets doctrine. Doctrine does not reinterpret Jesus.

Jesus is the final authority on how God relates to humans. So if a system requires us to treat Jesus’ “refuse / not willing / repent / come” language as something other than meaningful response, then I think we need to re-check the system against Jesus.

A few honest questions from the text​

1. Where does Jesus explicitly say that the Father’s “drawing” is irresistible and guarantees response?
2. How do you reconcile a coercive/irresistible reading of ἑλκύω (helkō) in John 6:44 with Jesus using the same verb while saying he draws all people in John 12:32?
3. How do we preserve the plain meaning of “you refuse” (John 5:40) and “you were not willing” (Matt 23:37) if unwillingness is not a meaningful cause of not coming?

I’m not writing any of this with animosity, nor am I looking to be provocative in any sense. I’m simply letting Jesus’ own words set the boundaries of what we’re allowed to conclude.

-Jonathan

 

[David]

keep our conclusions tethered to what Jesus actually teaches and assumes. If I’m wrong, I want to be corrected by the text. At the same time, I’m trying to be careful not to import conclusions onto Jesus that Jesus himself doesn’t state.

Jonathan, that claim no longer stands. You have been corrected by the text repeatedly. The issue is not that Jesus has not spoken clearly, it is that you refuse to accept what He says when it removes man as the final explanation. Jesus explicitly teaches inability, divine giving, and guaranteed coming. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” ~John 6:44. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” ~John 6:37. “No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” ~John 6:65. Those are Jesus’ words, not imported conclusions.

At this point the issue is no longer whether the texts exist or whether Jesus uses the language of refusal, drawing, repentance, or command. Those passages have already been laid before you plainly. Repeating them will not clarify anything. The question now is what you are doing with them.

You keep insisting that you are letting Jesus set the boundaries, yet every time Jesus speaks in a way that strips man of final authority, you immediately qualify Him. You say you are not denying divine initiative, but you refuse to let divine initiative be decisive. You say you are not making man sovereign, yet you will not allow salvation to end anywhere but in man’s response. That is not submission to Christ’s teaching. That is control.

Ask yourself honestly why the language of inability disturbs you. Why must refusal be treated as proof of power rather than evidence of bondage. Why must drawing be rendered non-decisive so that man remains the final explanation. Scripture answers this already. “There is none that seeketh after God” ~Romans 3:11. That verse was not written to provoke debate. It was written to humble the sinner.

You say Jesus never teaches that drawing guarantees coming. But you have been shown that He does. Your response has not been to submit to that statement, but to relativize it by appeal to other passages you believe must mean something else. That is not letting Jesus interpret Jesus. That is setting Him against Himself until He agrees with you.

This discussion will not advance by refining Greek verbs or restating moral categories. The line has already been crossed. Scripture has spoken clearly enough to remove neutrality. What remains is not confusion, but resistance.

So here is the question you need to face before God, not before a forum.

Is it acceptable to you that God saves in such a way that no man may boast. Is it acceptable that mercy is owed to no one. Is it acceptable that the decisive cause of salvation rests in God alone.

If it is not, then the problem is not with the text. It is with the throne.

This is not about winning an argument. It is about whether God is allowed to be God.

That is where this conversation ends. This line of teaching will not continue here.

 

[acex87]

Jonathan, that claim no longer stands. You have been corrected by the text repeatedly. The issue is not that Jesus has not spoken clearly, it is that you refuse to accept what He says when it removes man as the final explanation. Jesus explicitly teaches inability, divine giving, and guaranteed coming. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” ~John 6:44. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” ~John 6:37. “No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” ~John 6:65. Those are Jesus’ words, not imported conclusions.

At this point the issue is no longer whether the texts exist or whether Jesus uses the language of refusal, drawing, repentance, or command. Those passages have already been laid before you plainly. Repeating them will not clarify anything. The question now is what you are doing with them.

You keep insisting that you are letting Jesus set the boundaries, yet every time Jesus speaks in a way that strips man of final authority, you immediately qualify Him. You say you are not denying divine initiative, but you refuse to let divine initiative be decisive. You say you are not making man sovereign, yet you will not allow salvation to end anywhere but in man’s response. That is not submission to Christ’s teaching. That is control.

Ask yourself honestly why the language of inability disturbs you. Why must refusal be treated as proof of power rather than evidence of bondage. Why must drawing be rendered non-decisive so that man remains the final explanation. Scripture answers this already. “There is none that seeketh after God” ~Romans 3:11. That verse was not written to provoke debate. It was written to humble the sinner.

You say Jesus never teaches that drawing guarantees coming. But you have been shown that He does. Your response has not been to submit to that statement, but to relativize it by appeal to other passages you believe must mean something else. That is not letting Jesus interpret Jesus. That is setting Him against Himself until He agrees with you.

This discussion will not advance by refining Greek verbs or restating moral categories. The line has already been crossed. Scripture has spoken clearly enough to remove neutrality. What remains is not confusion, but resistance.

So here is the question you need to face before God, not before a forum.

Is it acceptable to you that God saves in such a way that no man may boast. Is it acceptable that mercy is owed to no one. Is it acceptable that the decisive cause of salvation rests in God alone.

If it is not, then the problem is not with the text. It is with the throne.

This is not about winning an argument. It is about whether God is allowed to be God.

That is where this conversation ends. This line of teaching will not continue here.

David, thank you again for taking time to reply — I genuinely appreciate it. I want to make sure I’m engaging your points carefully and respectfully.

You asked specifically about John 6:44 and how I see “drawing” in that context. That’s a good question, and it deserves a close look at both the language and the way Jesus uses similar terms.

In John 6:44 Jesus says:

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

The Greek word translated draws here is ἑλκύω (helkó). That verb can mean to draw, pull, attract, and in context it functions like an invitation or an initiating summons — not an irresistible compulsion that overrides the will.

Importantly, in John 5:40 Jesus speaks of people who refuse:

“You refuse to come to me that you may have life.”

Here Jesus is not describing some illusion of response; he’s naming a real moral stance. If coming were impossible apart from an irresistible dragging, then refusal would be nonsensical — but Jesus clearly frames refusal as real and consequential.

Later, in John 12:32, Jesus says:

“And I, when I am lifted up, will draw all people to myself.”

If “draw” meant an automatic, coercive effect that guarantees response, then this text would imply universal salvation by force — yet Jesus elsewhere affirms that not all receive him, that not all choose life. So taking these together — the inviting sense of ἑλκύω, the reality of refusal, and Jesus’ consistent moral language — seems to point to a pattern where divine initiative and human response are both real.

I completely agree with you that without God’s initiative we would never come; Jesus himself makes that point. My concern comes when a framework reads “drawing” as guaranteed motion independent of response. Jesus’ own teachings about willingness, refusal, obedience, and rejection assume that human response matters in a real way.

That doesn’t diminish God’s sovereignty or holiness; it simply follows the pattern Jesus actually teaches: God calls, Jesus invites, people respond — and that response is morally significant.

Thanks again for the conversation. I would also like to add that the truth does not mind being questioned. we should be free to contemplate any and all notions precisely because the truth defends itself and it always shine's through. No matter what.

Jesus echoes this sentiment in his Gospel when he says:

"If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me."

If Jesus does not withhold himself exempt from questioning, no one in the bible should be held be held exempt from questioning. Yet you act as if we are to take every notion put forth as exempt, when Jesus himself does not do so. Again, the truth does not need you to be its arbiter nor its defender. It is fully capable of defending itself, and it will do so.

-Jonathan

 

[David]

If Jesus does not withhold himself exempt from questioning, no one in the bible should be held be held exempt from questioning. Yet you act as if we are to take every notion put forth as exempt, when Jesus himself does not do so. Again, the truth does not need you to be its arbiter nor its defender. It is fully capable of defending itself, and it will do so.

Jonathan, no one here has suggested that Scripture is beyond examination or that questions are not allowed. The Bible itself documents questions, objections and appeals. But Scripture also draws the line between honest inquiry and refusing to submit after God has spoken.

Jesus did not welcome open-ended debate after truth had been plainly revealed. When His words were rejected, He pronounced the problem to be in the heart and not in explanation. “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word” ~John 8:43. He did not redefine what He was saying to better suit resistance.

The problem is not that questions are being asked. The problem is that when Scripture plainly answers those questions, those answers are then qualified, softened or reinterpreted so that they no longer mean what they say. That is not allowing truth to defend itself. That is resisting it.

Scripture commands not only examination but also submission. “Receive with meekness the engrafted word” ~James 1:21. “He that is of God heareth God’s words” ~John 8:47. When correction from the text is offered and repeatedly set aside, the problem is no longer inquiry.

As for arbiters, no man here claims to be one. Scripture itself is the arbiter. When Jesus says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” ~John 6:44, that statement does not call for defense, revision or balance. It calls for submission.

Truth does not need protection, but the flock does. Scripture lays that responsibility on overseers. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock” ~Acts 20:28. For that reason this matter has been discussed enough and will not be revisited.

This is not about silencing questions. It is about honoring what God has already said.

 

[David]

Here Jesus is not describing some illusion of response; he’s naming a real moral stance. If coming were impossible apart from an irresistible dragging, then refusal would be nonsensical — but Jesus clearly frames refusal as real and consequential.

Jonathan, the problem in this issue is not that Jesus spoke indirectly. The problem is that when He did, man did not like where it left him. Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” ~John 6:44. That is not poetry. That is not symbolism. That is a flat statement of fact. And then Jesus drives the nail deeper when He says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” ~John 6:37. Not might. Not could. Shall.

You keep pointing to refusal as though it proves man’s strength. Scripture says the opposite. “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” ~John 5:40. That is not freedom talking. That is rebellion. And Paul explains it plainly. “There is none that seeketh after God” ~Romans 3:11. The sinner is not neutral. He is hostile. “The carnal mind is enmity against God” ~Romans 8:7.

God’s commands were not placed to simply earn man a pat on the back or an Oscar for his efforts. They were there to show him a better way of life, more in keeping with God’s will. The commands have a place in God’s plan. “By the law is the knowledge of sin” ~Romans 3:20. God commands repentance because He is holy, not because man is capable. If man could save himself, Christ would never have gone to the cross.

Jesus put it beyond argument when He said, “Without me ye can do nothing” ~John 15:5. Nothing means nothing. This is not a game of word studies and clever explanations. This is about God’s glory or man’s insistence on keeping a piece of it for himself. Scripture says, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” ~Romans 9:16. That settles it. God saves sinners. Sinners do not save themselves.

 

[Denise60]

i learned a lot from this post thanks brothers