Official Everybody Edits Forums

Luka504

Member

From: Serbia,probs never heard of it

Joined: 2015-02-19

Posts: 2,933

A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

Bosse 2
A debate between two theological positions has raged. Arminianism, which questioned the doctrines of the Dutch Reformed Church in the late 16th – early 17th centuries, insisted upon fallen man‟s ability to choose God apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The Dutch Reformed Church, which embraced the theology of Calvinism, responded by re-affirming that man is in such bondage to sin that apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit he would never choose God. The Biblical passage of John 6:44 was at the heart of this issue, especially the nature of God‟s drawing. Arminians believe that God‟s drawing of people to Himself is universal, yet is not effectual. That is to say, even though God draws all people, they do not necessarily come. God‟s drawing is seen as an invitation that can be accepted or refused independently of God. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that God draws only the elect, this drawing is part of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, and it is effectual. That is to say, God‟s drawing is irresistible so that everyone who is drawn necessarily comes.
This paper is a logical analysis of John 6:44 followed by the implications for both the traditional Arminian and Calvinist positions. It is divided into four sections. Section one will deal with the Greek text and translation; section two will be a logical analysis of the text – ending with John 6:44 expressed in semi-formal terms; section three will explore the consequences of the logical analysis regarding Arminianism and Calvinism; and section four will be the conclusion. The conclusion reached is that under Arminian assumptions one is left with universalism; whereas, under Calvinist assumptions, Calvinism is found to be consistent.
Bosse 3
Section One – The Greek Text
John 6:44 (UBS):
ouvdei.j du,natai evlqei/n pro,j me eva.n mh. o` path.r o` pe,myaj me e`lku,sh| auvto,n( kai. evgw. avnasth,sw auvto.n [evn] th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å1

Any translation of an ancient language begins with the verbs. It should be noted that there are five verbs in the verse: du,natai, evlqei/n, pe,myaj, e`lku,sh, and avnasth,sw.
Du,natai
Du,natai
is the 3rd person singular deponent2 indicative form of du,namai. A deponent verb is one that has a middle/passive voice form but is active in meaning.3 The translation of this verb would be “he, she, or it is able,” speaking of ability. Most translations use the word „can,‟4 which certainly captures this meaning, especially if the „can‟ versus „may‟ distinction is kept in mind. However, to avoid possible confusion, the more explicit „able‟ will be used to indicate that ability is what is being communicated. Please note for future reference that this verb is a present tense verb.
1
Kurt Aland, Et al., The Greek New Testament – Fourth Revised Edition, published by the United Bible Societies, © 2001 (UBS). There are two minor textual variants in the passage. a, P 75, and the Textus Receptus omit the evn, and some manuscripts have kavgw. – a crasis of kai. evgw. – instead of kai. evgw. . A crasis occurs when two words are “pushed together” to make one. In this case, kai. evgw. has been pushed together to form kavgw. They both carry the meaning of “and I.” These variants do not affect the analysis.

2
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, ©1996, pg. 430.

3
Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek – A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach, Broadman and Homan, Nashville, TN, ©1994, pg. 135. The term „deponent‟ comes from the Latin „deponere‟ – meaning “to put down.” The idea is that these verbs “put down” their active forms.

4
NASB, NKJ, KJV, NIV, ESV, NRS, etc…

Bosse 4
Elqei/n
Elqei/n
is the second aorist active infinitive of e;rcomai. It is considered a complimentary infinitive, and is acting as an adverb modifying the verb du,natai. This is simply translated as “to come.” 5

Pe,myaj
Pe,myaj
is the aorist active nominative masculine singular participle of the verb pe,mpw, and is acting in the second attributive position modifying the noun path.r. This can be translated as “having sent.”

Elku,sh
Elku,sh
is the subjunctive aorist active 3rd person singular of e[lkw. Most translators translate this verb as “draws.” Please note that e`lku,sh is in the subjunctive mood.

Anasth,sw
Anasth,sw
is the future active indicative 1st person singular of avni,sthmi. It can be translated as “I will raise up.”

5
William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, ©1993, pg. 296.

Bosse 5
At this point, there is one other word we need to consider before presenting the translation – the subordinate conjunction eva.n, which indicates the protasis6 of a conditional sentence. That is to say, the eva.n found in John 6:44 marks the beginning of an “if…then…” conditional statement.

In the Greek language there are distinctions made regarding the semantic categories of conditional sentences. In Daniel Wallace‟s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics he lists the eva.n found in John 6:44 under the category of 3rd Class Conditionals.7 Regarding 3rd class conditionals, Mounce states in Basics of Greek Grammar, “Third class conditional sentences always have a protasis introduced by eva.n and a verb in the subjunctive. The verb in the apodosis8 can be any tense or mood.”9 As noted above, e`lku,sh is a subjunctive verb, and is the subjunctive verb in the protasis of our conditional statement.
There are two subdivisions of 3rd class conditionals: future more probable and present general. For a conditional to be the present general case the verb in the apodosis must be in the present tense.10 As we noted above du,natai, the verb in the apodosis, is a present tense verb. Our conditional fits the form of a present general conditional, and the
6
The protasis of a conditional sentence is the antecedent of the conditional sentence. Consider the following conditional sentence: If you believe, then you will be saved. “You believe” is the protasis (antecedent) of the conditional.

7
Wallace, pg. 699.

8
The apodosis of a conditional sentence is the consequent of the conditional sentence. Consider the following conditional sentence: If you believe, then you will be saved. “You will be saved” is the apodosis (consequent) of the conditional.

9
Mounce, p. 288.

10
Ibid., p. 288.

Bosse 6
context points to this. Present general conditionals state “a general truth, an axiomatic truth.”11 Therefore, what is being communicated in verse 44 of John 6 is an axiomatic truth regarding man‟s ability/inability to come to Jesus. The passage is now able to be translated.
Translation: (A)
No one is able to come to Me (B) if not the Father – the One having sent Me – draws him, (C) and I will raise him up on the last day.
At first blush, many will notice that section B is translated differently than what is commonly found in most translations. Section B is the protasis of the 3rd class present general conditional.12 As such, the above translation is a very literal translation capturing the full force of the conditional. In English, this translation is a little awkward, and consequently, the other translations attempt to smooth it out. Suffice it to say, the translation presented is very faithful to the text, even though it may read a bit rough. Please note that the apodosis of the conditional is section A. The apodosis preceding the protasis is a little unusual, but it certainly is not unheard of. This is exactly what the grammar of the sentence dictates.
11
Ibid., p. 288.

12
Wallace calls this type of conditional a 5th class conditional rather than distinguishing between two types of 3rd class conditionals as does Mounce.

Bosse 7
Section Two – A Logical Analysis
The verse is grammatically set up into three sections labeled A, B, and C as
indicated the above translation. What will be determined is the logical relationship
between these three sections. To help with the logical analysis the three sections will be
put into a semi-formal form, which will require a little revision of the translation.
Original: (A)
No one is able to come to Me...
Revised: (A1)
He is not able to come to Me…
A1 does not change the meaning of our verse. “No one is able” has been
converted into “he is not able.” Someone might balk at this in that “no one” is more
general than “he,” but in terms of the passage with the Father drawing “him” and Jesus
raising “him,” changing the “one” to match these pronouns does not change the meaning
of the verse. If q represents “he is able to come to Me,” then A1 is represented
symbolically by: q .13 Now we will turn our attention to section B.
Original: (B)
…not the Father draws him…14

Revised: (B1)
…the Father does not draw him…
13
The symbol „ ‟ designates the negation of what follows. The negation of “he is able” is “he is not
able.”

14
The phrase “…the One who sent Me…” has been purposefully left out. It modifies the Father (o` path.r),
and will not matter in terms of the logical analysis. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and clarity it has

been left out. Also, the „if‟ has been left out for the moment because conditional statements in logic h
ave

their own symbol to designate the „if.‟ This symbol will be used once we are ready to bring the 3 sections
together.
Bosse 8
If p represents “the Father does draw him,” then B1 is logically equivalent to p. Our
last section can be represented as follows…

Original: (C)
… I will raise him up on the last day.15

If r represents “I will raise him up on the last day,” then C is logically equivalent to r.
Pulling all of this together, we may now symbolically represent John 6:44 as follows…

Revised John 6:44:
q if p and r.
The revised version of John 6:44 above reads, “He is not able to come to Me, if
the Father does not draw him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” The next step is to
represent „if‟ and „and‟ more formally. However, an interesting issue arises. As seen
from the grammatical discussion above regarding eva.n with the subjunctive, the
relationship between sections A and B has been defined. Section A is the apodosis, and
section B is the protasis of a conditional statement. In terms of symbolic logic this would
be stated the following way: p → q.16 This would read, “If the Father does not draw
him, then he is not able to come to me,” and carries the same meaning as does the
original verse. The issue that faces us is how the “and r” relates to the conditional
sentence. Is „r‟ part of the protasis, and if so, does mh. (not) negate both „p‟ and „r‟, or
15
The „and‟ of section 3 has been purposefully left out because it is uniquely represented in symbolic logic,

and will be used when we bring the 3 sections together.
16
The symbol „→‟indicates implication in logic. An implication is simply an “if…then…” conditional

statement. Therefore,
p → q would read, “If p, then q.”

Bosse 9
just the „p‟? Is „r‟ part of the apodosis in our conditional sentence? Or, is „r‟ simply an
additional proposition following our conditional statement? In other words, there are
four possible relationships „r‟ might have with „p‟and „q‟:
(1)
p r q 17

(2)
p r q

(3)
p q r

(4)
p q r

Possibility One:
p r q

This sentence reads, “It is not the case that if [the Father draws him, and I will
raise him up on the last day]18, then he is not able to come to me.” By the logical law of

contraposition p r q
is logically equivalent to q p r .19 This is logically
equivalent to q p q r , which says, “If you are able to come to Me, then the
Father draws you, and if you are able to come to Me, then I, [Jesus], will raise you up on
the last day.” These ideas are theologically interesting, but there are some grammatical
arguments against this reading.
17
The logical symbol „ ‟ indicates a conjunction, i.e., „and.‟

18
Brackets will be used to make explicit the meaning of the formal statement when translated back into
English. In this particular instance, the brackets make explicit that ( p r ) represent the protasis of the
conditional.

19
The logical law of contraposition simply states that p → q is logically equivalent to q → p. This is

intuitively obvious as the following will illustrate: “If you believe (
p), then you will be saved (q)” is
logically equivalent to “if you are not saved ( q), then you did not believe ( p).”

Bosse 10
Because the text is a 3rd class conditional, if possibility one were the case, then
both verbs in our protasis would need to be in the subjunctive mood, and the verb in our
apodosis
would need to be in the past tense. In other words, the reading would be, “It is
not the case that if [the Father draws him (subjunctive) and I raise him up on the last day
(subjunctive)], then he was not able to come to Me (past tense).” However, the verb

avnasth,sw
is in the indicative and not subjunctive mood, and the verb du,namai is in the
present and not past tense. Therefore, possibility one is ruled out.

Possibility Two:
p r q

This is very similar to possibility one, but logically it carries a different meaning.
It reads, “If
[the father does not draw him, and I will raise him up], then he is not able to

come to Me.”
There are theological and philosophical issues with this statement.
Assuming this condition is possible to be fulfilled, then there are three things being
stated: (1) Jesus raises up some who are not drawn by the Father; (2) those whom the
Father has not drawn, but Jesus raises up are not able to come to Jesus; and (3) not being
able to come to Jesus is dependent upon the future action of Jesus raising this person.
Regarding (1), both Arminians and Calvinists would agree this is inconsistent with the
context of the passage. (2) The raising up on the last day is a rising up to eternal life as
the context indicates – see John 6:40; 47. Both Arminians and Calvinists would deny that
there are some who are raised on the last day that did not come to Jesus. (3)
Philosophically, it is problematic to have the consequence of a person not being able to
Bosse 11
come to Jesus occur as a result of the future event of Jesus raising that person up on the
last day. All of these problems render this formalization very unlikely. However, not
even considering the theological and philosophical issues raised, this statement is
precluded for the very same grammatical reasons possibility one was precluded.

Possibility Three:
p q r

The rendering of this statement is as follows:
“If the Father does not draw him,

then
[he is not able to come to Me, and I will raise him up].” This is logically equivalent

to:
p q p r , which reads, “If the father does not draw him, then he is not

able to come to Me,
and if the Father does not draw him, then I will raise him up.” The
theological problem with this is the idea that Jesus will raise up someone who has not
been drawn by the Father. As argued above, the context indicates otherwise. However,
this is not the only reason this reading is able to be dismissed. The grammatical structure
of the sentence is such that it is very unlikely section C is part of the apodosis of our
conditional sentence. There is no parallel construction in the New Testament or
Septuagint where the conjunction of the apodosis is separated by the protasis. These
theological and grammatical issues dismiss this possibility leaving us with the most
natural rendering of the text: possibility four.
Bosse 12

Possibility Four:
p q r

This statement reads, “
[If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to
come to Me], and I will raise him up on the last day.” This possibility is logically
equivalent to q p r , which reads, “[If he is able to come to Me, then the Father
draws him], and I will raise him up on the last day.” Of all the possibilities, this one fits
the grammatical structure of the sentence best. From a theological perspective, the

necessary precondition for one‟s
ability to come to Jesus is the Father drawing that
person, and q p captures this perfectly. Therefore, we conclude that John 6:44 is
expressed symbolically as follows: p q r .
This statement reads, “
[If the Father does not draw him, then he is not able to
come to Me], and I will raise him up on the last day.” This possibility is logically
equivalent to q p r , which reads, “[If he is able to come to Me, then the Father
draws him], and I will raise him up on the last day.” Of all the possibilities, this one fits
the grammatical structure of the sentence best. From a theological perspective, the

necessary precondition for one‟s
ability to come to Jesus is the Father drawing that
person, and q p captures this perfectly. Therefore, we conclude that John 6:44 is
expressed symbolically as follows: p q r .

Section Three
– Theological Implications of the Analysis

Having determined the logical structure of the passage, we now apply this to the
Arminian/Calvinist debate discussed earlier. The Arminian position is that God draws all
people,
20 and as a result of this drawing all people are able to come to Jesus, but all do
not come to Jesus. How do these assumptions fit in with our analysis of John 6:44?
The Arminian position that “God draws all people, and therefore all people are
able to come” is compatible with John 6:44; however, based on our logical analysis
above, the consequence of this position is not consistent with the position that “all do not
come to Jesus.” It has already been established that John 6:44 is saying: q p r .

20
Arminians will normally appeal to John 12:32 in support of this.

Bosse 13
Applying the assump
tion that “God draws all people, and therefore all people are able to come” to the verse we are left with the following:

Premise 1: [
If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him], and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)

Premise 2:
He (all people) is able to come to Me, and the Father draws him (all people).21 (Arminian Position)

Conclusion:
I (Jesus) will raise him (all people) up on the last day.
This is a very startling conclusion. If all people are able to come and are drawn (i.e., if every „him‟ is able to come and every „him‟ is drawn), then every person (i.e., every „him‟) will be raised up on the last day. This is universalism. The Arminian will object by saying that Jesus only raises those who do come. That is to say, they want to understand the referent of „him‟ in section C as the one who actually comes. However, there is no mention of the one who actually comes in John 6:44. This verse only mentions those who are drawn, and those who are able to come. The „him‟ in section C either refers to the one drawn, or it refers to the one able to come. There is no referent for the one who actually comes. As such, given the Arminian position that “God draws all people, and therefore all people are able to come,” John 6:44 logically entails universalism.

21
Technically, this premise is not in the proper form for the conclusion to follow immediately. However, the proper form that allows the conclusion to follow immediately is logically entailed by the premise.

Bosse 14
The Calvinist, as does the Arminian, believes that all those drawn have the ability to come. The Calvinist,
contra the Arminian, also believes that all who are drawn will necessarily come and will be raised up on the last day. Regarding those drawn, the Calvinist believes that only the elect are drawn. How does the Calvinist position hold up in light of John 6:44?

Premise 1: [
If he is able to come to Me, then the Father drew him], and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)

Premise 2:
He (all the elect) is able to come to Me, and the Father drew him (all the elect).22 (Calvinist Position)

Conclusion:
I (Jesus) will raise all the elect up on the last day.
This conclusion is completely compatible with the Calvinist position. In a sense, the Father‟s drawing is a universal drawing. It is a universal drawing of the elect. That is to say, all of the elect will be drawn. The universal affirmative conclusion that the Father draws all the elect, and that all the elect will all be raised up on the last day is articulated by Peter when he says, “The Lord is not slow about His promise…but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”23

22
See footnote 21.

23
NASB – 2 Peter 3:9.

Bosse 15
Section Four
– Conclusion

Based on the aforementioned analysis, the position taken by Calvinism is consistent with the logical consequences of John 6:44. The traditional Arminian position, however, has been demonstrated to be inconsistent resulting in universalism. It is interesting to note, based on the logical analysis done above John 6:44 does teach some type of universalism. It either teaches the salvation of all the elect (Calvinism) or it teaches the salvation of all every person (universalism).
Bosse 16
Works Sited
Aland, Karavidopoulos, Martini, and Metzger.
The Greek New Testament – Fourth Revised Edition. United Bible Societies. Stuttgart, Germany. © 2001.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. ©1993.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. ©1996.

Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek – A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach, Broadman and Homan, Nashville, TN, ©1994,

---

How long will it take me to get banned again?
Place your bets right here.

Jorc

Member

From: Petoria

Joined: 2016-03-20

Posts: 1,351

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

98% of people will not read the whole of this wall of text

include me

TaskManager

Formerly maxi123

From: i really should update this

Joined: 2015-03-01

Posts: 9,460

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

meh
poor quality ****

---

signature by HG, profile picture by bluecloud, thank!!
previous signature by drstereos

Luka504

Member

From: Serbia,probs never heard of it

Joined: 2015-02-19

Posts: 2,933

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

But TaskManager if it's low quality then it makes it ****
Which is the idea.
So that means it's a good ****

---

How long will it take me to get banned again?
Place your bets right here.

Anak

Guest

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

TaskManager

Formerly maxi123

From: i really should update this

Joined: 2015-03-01

Posts: 9,460

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

But TaskManager if it's low quality then it makes it ****
Which is the idea.
So that means it's a good ****

poor quality as in judging by **** standards

---

signature by HG, profile picture by bluecloud, thank!!
previous signature by drstereos

Norwee

Formerly NorwegianboyEE

From: Norway

Joined: 2015-03-16

Posts: 3,772

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

Can someone sum up this topic for me?

---

★              ☆        ★        ☆         ★
   ☆    ★                     ★

shadowda

Member

From: somewhere probably.

Joined: 2015-02-19

Posts: 1,015

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

i want to read it, but the formatting...

---

color = #1E1E1E       

Guest.

Guest

Re: A Logical Analysis - John 6:44

oh my god i thought ak712 posted this for a second