Why George Bryson Won't Debate Anymore

John 6 and the Meaning of Being Drawn to Christ

Feels like I was just here. Mr. Bryson, I would like to ask you, in light of what I just said concerning John 6, verse 44, all the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who, I'm sorry, no one is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is it your position that the one who's raised up at the last day in John 6, verse 44, is different than the one who's drawn?

It is my position that there are two things required. You must come to him, that's one, and to come to him, you must be drawn. It's my position that scripture clearly, John 6, verse 44, and all of that context, you're talking a lot about the need to look at things in context, if you take all of that in connection, there are two things that happen.

One you have to see, and another you have to believe, if you go on earlier in that very chapter, but the point here is that you cannot come, you are not able to come, unless he draws you, but being able to come and actually coming to him in faith are not exactly the same thing.

He enables you to come, and if you come to him and are drawn, and you can't come to him unless you're drawn, then he will raise you up, but he doesn't raise people up unless they come to him, but the ability to come, he gives, but making you able to come doesn't make you come.

Okay, verse 44 says, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. Are you saying those two hims are different people?

No, I'm saying those two people there, that one person does two things, one, he comes to him, but he comes to him only because he is able to do so.

Where did you get that from in verse 44?

44, two things, no one can come to me, come to me, that's the one thing. The other thing he says is that that person who comes to him has to be enabled by the Father drawing him. No one can unless he's enabled.

So he has to come to him, and he has to be drawn. But if he is drawn and doesn't come to him, then in fact he will not be raised up at the last day. Just as it earlier says, he must see and believe.

So you believe that the him, the two hims here are different because you just said you can be drawn and not raised up.

No, I'm capable as one person of doing more than one thing, and God is capable of doing something while I'm doing something, and what he does here is enable me to come. What I do is come. I come in faith.

As a matter of fact, let me just say that even Calvin suggested that coming is a metaphor.

For believing. There's no question about that, but where does the word enable appear in verse 44?

Can come, and in fact I remember in your book you point this out.

No one is able to come. That's right. But it does not say he is enabled, it says, unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day, the drawing results in being raised up.

That is not what it says. It says that no one can come to me, and almost all Calvinist commentaries say the can is enabling. It is not inevitable that you will come, it's an enabling.

Could you name one that confuses ability with enablement?

Ability and enablement is the same. You mentioned my own book.

I never said anything about enablement. I said no man has the ability.

Ability and enablement, unless you have a different definition, when somebody is able to do something, or if somebody has been enabled to do something, they are now able to do it.

You said that between these two hymns you have to come. Who comes to Christ according to John 6 .37?

Only those who are enabled come to him, and those that the Father has given to him.

Okay, all, I didn't understand that, according to verse 37, all the Father gives me will come to me. Who is given by the Father to the Son? Those who believe. Not unbelievers, but believers. Would you agree with that?

So God gives those that he foresees will believe to the Son?

Well, of course he foresees everything, but I'm not saying he gives him the Son because he foresees. The fact that God, God enables people to do something, but they still must do it. He enables us to believe, but we still must believe.

Didn't you just say that coming is a metaphor for believing? Exactly. And isn't the giving of the Father here what results in their coming to Christ?

No, that is not. Coming to Christ is putting your faith in him.

I understand that, but just on a simple grammatical level, which action in verse 37 comes first? The giving of the Father to the Son or the coming to Christ?

Well, I don't think there is a chronological order. I think there's two things that are true. Only those, only those that the Father gives to the Son come to the Father, but only those who believe does the Father give to the Son.

Now, the other choice, the other option is to say that he gives unbelievers to the Son. And if you want to say that, I'm happy with that.

No, I'm just, I'm just, you don't believe that there is any temporal priority here between the Father giving and people coming? All the Father gives you will come to me. That's right. All that I give $10 to will buy books at Stand to Reason.

Which action comes first? Well, what I'm saying here, and I think it speaks for itself, that those who he enables to come do come. Those who believe in him, he gives to the Son. If you want to say the opposite, that he gives unbelievers to the Son, you can say it.

But all the questioning on this isn't going to change that.

The Calvinist View of Christ's Blood and the Elect

You had said earlier that the Calvinist position is that Christ's blood is worthless to all but the elect.

I'm saying that's the Calvinist position, yes. You're saying that's Calvinist? Oh, except in a common, perhaps some side benefits. That's what I've heard Calvinists say.

Is it not your understanding that, in fact, the Reformed position is that it was Christ's intention to redeem his people upon the cross?

That's right. Which would be the equivalent of what I've said.

Except that the idea of, well, that would be a response. So is your idea that worthlessness follows from a lack of intention of saving someone?

No, it's totally separate issues here. Worthlessness is a relative issue in this context because if Christ died for me, there's value to me in his death. If he did not die for me, there is no value to me in his death.

What value is there in the death of Christ on behalf of every person who will end up in hell?

The value is intrinsic to his death for that person. If a person rejects something... What does it accomplish then? If I were to give you, let me explain, if I were to give you or offer you some money and you didn't take it, if I were to give you money and you didn't take it, it would still have value.

But if I gave you blank, if I offered you blank money, it wouldn't be any good.