09/04/2026
Very good article by Oloyede Olayinka
I’ve seen Dr. White (a Calvinist scholar) appeal to John 6:37 a couple of times now, and I think it’s high time we dealt carefully with this text and the assumptions being read into it. He often quotes it as though the verse itself settles the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.”
So now he is asking: Which comes first, the Father giving a person to Christ, or that person coming to Christ?
And my answer is simple: the Father’s giving precedes the coming. I have no reason to fight the text or the grammar. But that does not settle the theological question being debated.
The real question is: Who does the Father give to the Son, and how does John describe the Father bringing or giving people to Christ?
Because John 6:37 does NOT say: “All individuals whom the Father unconditionally elected to salvation before creation and regenerated before faith will therefore irresistibly believe.”
If that is what “giveth me” means, it must be demonstrated from the text and context. It cannot simply be placed inside the word “give” and then read back out as though the doctrine has been proved.
So now, let's allow Jesus to explain Jesus.
Let's backtrack a bit and start with John 6:35: “He that COMETH to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst.”
Coming to Christ and believing in Christ are placed in parallel.
Then Jesus identifies the problem in v.36: “Ye also have seen me, and BELIEVE NOT.”
They have encountered revelation and yet remain unbelieving.
Then comes v.37: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and HIM THAT COMETH TO ME I will in no wise cast out.”
Yes, the Father gives. Those given come. And every individual who comes is received by Christ.
But keep reading.
Verse 39 says Christ will raise up what the Father has given Him.
Then v.40 says: “This is the will of him that sent me, that EVERY ONE which seeth the Son, and BELIEVETH on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Notice the same destination: raised up at the last day.
The people given to Christ are not presented as some alternative category to those believing in Christ. Jesus describes the saved from both sides: the people the Father gives are those who believe in the Son, and they are the ones Christ receives, gives eternal life and raises at the last day.
But the Calvinist still has to establish the disputed link: Does the Father give them because He unconditionally selected certain unbelievers for salvation and irresistibly causes their faith through prior regeneration?
John 6:37 itself never says that.
Then we reach v.44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”
I affirm every word. No sinner independently manufactures his own salvation. Nobody comes apart from God's gracious initiative. The Father must act.
But again, don't stop reading. Jesus immediately continues: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all TAUGHT of God. Every man therefore that hath HEARD, and hath LEARNED of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45)
That verse deserves far more attention than it normally receives in this debate.
Jesus moves from the Father's drawing in v.44 to the Father's teaching, and then to people hearing, learning and coming in v.45. Faith in the gospel message is the only means the Father does the giving of those people to Christ.
So whatever else we say about divine drawing, Jesus Himself places it in the context of divine revelation, instruction, and believing. And this is not an isolated thought.
Go back one chapter. Jesus tells these unbelieving Jews: “The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me.” (John 5:37)
Then: “Search the scriptures... they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)
So we see that the Father testified, the Scriptures testified, Moses testified.
And what does Jesus say was wrong? “Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life.” (John 5:40)
That is striking language. Jesus does not locate their condemnation in some stated absence of an eternal decree permitting them to believe. He confronts their refusal to come to the One in whom life is found. Unbelief is the reason they are not part of those the Father is giving to Christ.
And then He says: “Had ye BELIEVED Moses, ye would have BELIEVED me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46)
Now compare that with John 6:45: “Every man therefore that hath HEARD, and hath LEARNED of the Father, cometh unto me.”
The connection between receiving the Father's revelation and coming to His Son is sitting right there in John's Gospel.
And then John gives us another fascinating statement in Jesus' prayer: “THINE THEY WERE, and thou gavest them me.” (John 17:6)
Don't rush past that.
Jesus does not merely say, “You gave them to Me.”
He says: “They were Yours, and You gave them to Me.”
And what does He say about them in the same context? “They have kept thy word.” (17:6)
And: “They have received them... and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have BELIEVED that thou didst send me.” (17:8)
I would not pretend John 17:6 by itself establishes an entire doctrine of election. It doesn't. But it certainly warns us against assuming that every reference to people being “given” to Christ automatically means, “unconditionally selected unbelievers who were secretly regenerated before faith and thereby caused irresistibly to believe.”
John's own language is richer than that.
So when someone asks: “Which comes first, giving or coming?” Again, my answer is: Giving.
Now let me ask the question that actually matters: What determines whom the Father gives, and where does Jesus define this giving as unconditional election followed by pre-faith regeneration producing irresistible faith?
Because THAT is the disputed proposition. You cannot assume it in v.37 and then use v.37 to prove it. And there is another problem with simply equating divine drawing with an irresistible operation restricted to the elect.
Later Jesus says: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will DRAW ALL MEN unto me.” (John 12:32)
Same Gospel. Same Jesus. Same verb family of drawing. That does not mean John 6:44 and John 12:32 have identical contexts or that John 12:32 teaches universal salvation. Obviously it does not.
But it does mean that “draw” cannot simply be defined lexically as “irresistibly cause the elect to believe.” If drawing itself necessarily meant irresistible conversion, John 12:32 would entail universalism. It doesn't.
So the Calvinist must establish irresistibility from the context rather than smuggling irresistibility into the verb.
What then about John 6:65? “No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” Amen to that! Divine enabling is indispensable.
But here is the logical leap that needs to be exposed: necessary grace is not the same proposition as irresistible grace. “No man can come unless God enables him” does NOT logically mean: “Every person whom God enables must irresistibly come.”
Those are different propositions.
If a locked door prevents me from entering a room, someone opening that door is necessary for my entrance. But opening the door does not irresistibly cause me to walk through it.
The analogy is obviously limited, as all analogies are, but the logical distinction stands: A necessary condition is not thereby a sufficient and irresistible cause.
So where does Scripture teach that God's gracious action cannot be resisted? Because elsewhere Scripture has no difficulty saying:
“Ye do always RESIST the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 7:51)
Jesus says: “How often WOULD I have gathered thy children together... and YE WOULD NOT!” (Matt. 23:37)
And again: “Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life.” (John 5:40)
Luke even says that the Pharisees and lawyers: “REJECTED the counsel of God against themselves.” (Luke 7:30)
Therefore Scripture can affirm two truths simultaneously: No one comes to Christ apart from God's gracious initiative.
And: Human beings can resist God's gracious revelation and refuse to come.
There is no contradiction there unless one has already defined saving grace as necessarily irresistible.
But that definition is precisely what needs to be proved. And this also exposes the false dilemma underneath much of this debate.
My alternatives are NOT: Calvinistic irresistible grace or an autonomous sinner independently deciding to save himself. Scripture gives us neither.
God initiates. God sends the Son. God reveals. God teaches. God testifies. God draws. The Spirit convicts. The gospel is proclaimed. The sinner hears God's Word and is called to believe. The believer comes to Christ. Christ receives him. Christ gives him life. God remains the author, provider, and accomplisher of salvation from beginning to end. Faith contributes no merit whatsoever.
Paul actually distinguishes believing from working: “But to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5)
We need to please stop treating faith as though believing the Savior means helping the Savior save you. The beggar who receives bread did not bake it. The Israelite who looked at the bronze serpent did not manufacture its healing provision. And the sinner who believes in Christ did not shed Christ's blood, satisfy God's righteousness, defeat death or raise Jesus from the grave. Faith receives. Christ saves.
And John's own purpose statement is especially important: “These are WRITTEN, that ye might BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that BELIEVING ye might HAVE LIFE through his name.” (John 20:31). John deliberately connects revelation, believing and life.
Likewise, Jesus gave us His modus operandi for salvation: “He that HEARETH my word, and BELIEVETH on him that sent me, HATH everlasting life... and is PASSED FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE.” (John 5:24). That certainly does not sound like John's great concern is to establish: regenerated into life first → therefore able to believe afterward.
John repeatedly places hearing and believing in connection with receiving life through Christ.
So yes, I gladly concede the original grammatical point: The Father's giving precedes the coming in John 6:37. But that establishes divine priority, not the entire Calvinistic order of salvation.
I believe in divine priority. The Father acted first. Grace first. Revelation first. Christ first. Spirit first. But between the Father's acting first in redemption and the giving to Christ lies the response of faith in the gospel message, which is God's only tool for salvation.
The question now is whether your theological mechanism can account for all of these without quietly inserting propositions into John 6:37 that Jesus never stated.
Now, go ahead and show us from the text that “gives” means “unconditionally elected these particular individuals before creation, regenerated them before faith, and irresistibly caused their believing.”
Don't merely assume that mechanism and then quote the verse containing the word “gives” as proof of the assumption. You brought the grammar. Good. Now exegete the mechanism.
