Drawn by Grace, Free to Choose: God’s Love Invites All to the Bread of Life
John 6:43-46
Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me, not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father."
Remember that Jesus said the work that we can do for God's kingdom is to believe on the One whom He sent. And this was why Jesus referred to himself as the bread of life, he who came down from heaven like the manna that was sent while the people were in the wilderness. So, the bread of life calls the people to God, affirming His covenant relationship with them, even before they sought Him He sent his Son to them.
And again remember, Jesus said he came down from heaven not to do his own will, but to do his Father's will.
John 6:40
"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
No person can come to the Father except that the Father draws him. So, how does this shake out in the idea that humanity has free will?
This scripture focus today raises a profound theological question about the interplay between divine sovereignty and human free will, particularly in the context of salvation. The passage in John 6:43-46, particularly the statement "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (v. 44), alongside the call to believe (v. 40), raises the question of how God’s initiative interacts with human responsibility. Throughout the history of the Christian church, many have struggled with these questions, one in particular and of significant consequence was the reformation theologian Calvin. And then of course others responded to his philosophical reasoning. One in particular among them was 16th-century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, who nuanced an approach to reconciling divine sovereignty and human free will. His ideas have become known as "Molinism".
Molinism seeks to harmonize God’s sovereignty (including His foreknowledge and providence) with human free will by introducing this concept of a middle knowledge (scientia media). Simply put, he's suggesting that God isn't making people do something, He's making the circumstances that will affect them into doing something, should they be so inclined.
Does that seem simply put?
Maybe it's still confusing.
It's like this. People, (us), we are all living in the same state of humanity, the so called "flesh". But this isn't just about the physical body, any more than Jesus is only talking about physical bread. Middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of what any free creature would do in the flesh in any possible set of circumstances. God knows what will happen and what could have happened in any number of other ways. This is a multiverse idea. Through middle knowledge, God knows all counterfactuals of fleshly freedom. This allows God to sovereignly create a world where His purposes (e.g., salvation through Christ) are accomplished while preserving genuine human freedom.
Why does any of this matter?
I'd say it matters because it all goes to helping us realize that faith is truly a gift from God, and not a work of human beings striving or invention. In Molinism, the Father’s "drawing" in John 6:44 can be understood as God’s providential arrangement of circumstances, enabled by His middle knowledge, to bring individuals to a point where they freely choose to believe in Jesus. Through this "middle knowledge", the circumstances we experience guide us to Jesus, (e.g., hearing the gospel, experiencing conviction, encountering Christ’s teachings), which ultimately leads us into that faith. Not hopefully leading us into faith but providentially fulfilling the Father's will. The phrase "unless the Father draws him" suggests a necessary divine initiative, which Molinism sees as God actualizing a world where specific individuals are placed in circumstances conducive to faith.
But Mike? Where in this then is humanity's free will?
The emphasis on "everyone who looks on the Son and believes" (John 6:40) implies a human agency. Molinism posits the idea that God, knowing what each person would do, places them in their particular circumstances where they can freely choose to "look on the Son" and believe. Those who come to Jesus do so freely, yet only because God’s grace enabled the opportunity, fulfilling John 6:44’s requirement of divine drawing.
If this sounds familiar to reformed minded folks, it should. It's a lot like Calvinism’s irresistible grace, and Wesley's prevenient grace. In this view, the Father draws everyone through the work of Christ (John 12:32), but individuals retain the freedom to accept or reject this drawing. Belief is a genuine human choice, enabled but not determined by God’s grace. But can they purely make this claim when Jesus was raised up both on the cross and from the grave by the Father's design? The circumstances of Jesus', from advent to ascension, draws the people because the Father created it all for that purpose.
Yes, Jesus invites all to come to him, but this view must wrestle with the strong language of John 6:44, which seems to indicate that the Father’s drawing is necessary and specific, not merely a universal enablement.
So we've maybe discovered a profound understanding. The idea that God doesn’t force people to choose Him; instead, He sovereignly arranges the circumstances that ultimately leads them into faith in Christ. God doesn’t coerce people into faith but sovereignly arranges the "graces".
By describing these circumstances as "graces," we're emphasizing that the Father’s drawing (John 6:44) is an act of divine love and provision, like the "bread of life" offered to sustain His covenant people. God, through His middle knowledge, knows exactly what circumstances will invite each person to freely choose faith, ensuring salvation remains His gift while honoring human agency.
Now, if you're like me you're immediately going to question this, asking; "why then do some not believe and find salvation in Christ?" How is it that despite God’s universal desire for all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and Jesus’ drawing of "all people" through His cross (John 12:32), some still do not believe. How does this philosophical theological argument account for them?
If God arranges circumstances (“graces”) to invite faith, using His middle knowledge to know what would lead each person to freely choose Christ, why do, or how is it possible that some reject salvation?
Molinism answers this question with "libertarian free will", which means individuals can genuinely choose to accept or reject God’s graces.
Well to that I would again ask, how is it that God wasn't successful in arranging the circumstances in a way that would succeed in drawing even those who do not believe? How is it that an omniscient, omnipotent God, who knows via middle knowledge what circumstances would lead each person to faith, doesn’t arrange circumstances to ensure everyone freely chooses Christ?
Molinism essentially answers that question by saying God’s "success" isn’t measured by universal belief; by introducing the idea of the concept of Transworld depravity, an idea borrowed from philosopher Alvin Plantinga. This suggests that no matter the multiverse of circumstances given, some people will always choose rebellion. Kind of like a universal evil for some, but not fully.
For some, there may be no feasible set of circumstances where they would freely choose Christ, not because of a deterministic "universal evil" but because their free choices consistently favor rebellion, sin, or autonomy (John 3:19: "people loved darkness rather than light" ). Some folks are just plain wicked, even if they confess that about themselves, just the same they lean into it. This isn’t because God created them to be "evil" but because of their free will, they are shaped by the fallen human condition ("flesh" ), which leads them to persist in rejecting God’s invitation. In John 6:43, the grumbling crowds exemplify this, freely rejecting Jesus’ teaching despite the grace of His presence.
In conclusion: (at least for today)
Some folks will still see a God who doesn't seem very loving in His prevenient arrangement of circumstances and exceptions that saved some and damns others. And I get that, wouldn't it amazing grace if no one is left behind. But we must understand that it wouldn't be wonderful, because in that circumstance it also wouldn't be just.
The fact of the matter is, Transworld depravity reflects the reality that some people, in their freedom, persistently choose to reject God’s graces, not because of a "universal evil" but because their free will leads them to prioritize something other than faith in Christ. They made their bed, and God allows them to freely lie in it.
BUT...listen carefully!
God’s love persists, even for those who reject grace, God’s love is evident in providing optimal circumstances, like the "bread of life" offered to all. Their rejection doesn’t negate His desire for their salvation (1 Timothy 2:4).
God loved the rich young ruler. God loved Judas. God even loved Pilate.
And therefore, God loves you. And now we understand that he's loved you since before you were born. He's lovingly arranged things for you to find his Son so that you can find a home in His house. And He went out into the world to set things up for you to find Him. He's had his mind on you, and his heart set on you from the beginning. And He loves you with a love beyond all understanding.
So, what are you going to do with that?
God only knows.