Latest activity

sjastro · 2025-11-02T18:21:46-0600

Why don't you try posting material with a relevant science content such as why paper clips magically link together or single socks disappear forever after being machine washed.

rockytopva · 2025-11-02T18:12:14-0600

I have read thread titles on online Christian threads that begin like this… “How to beat the boredom in heaven…” Started apparently by a young person who have deduced that since his church is boring, heaven must be boring.

In my younger days as a Christian nothing about the Pentecostal Holiness church I belonged to was “boring.” Our pastor started out as an evangelist and then accepted the pastorate at our church. We went to church Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday night, and Saturday night prayer service. We also had an active young persons ministry who would take us places. We also had many revivals during the year. When the evangelist came to preach they all had remarkable testimonies. It was also exciting to hear the testimonies of those in attendance on what was happening in their own life.

Fearing that this type of revival was coming to an end. And fearing likewise we were going to follow the same paths as the Methodist 100 years before us, I created a web site called youtube.com/rockytopva as a forward pass to the next generation. In hopes they would enjoy the type revivals I was used to growing up. At the time of this posting this website is at 4,001,315 views. I do not promote any kind of denomination, only the kind of exciting services I was use to coming up. The closest thing to this type revival was the Asbury Revival a couple of years back.

I had dreams the whole time I was sleeping about being in those type revivals. I had in my hand revivals identified in their Latin names. And feeling the second revival was the one I had experienced. The evangelists impressed me with their earnestness and there were many amens to it in the audience. I do not remember their text, but those were typical revival sermons, full of unction and power. While preaching an evangelist snatched the paperwork out of my hand and began to preach over it. And began to identify the churches I had written down in Latin. I was going to speak up and say something but the choir kicked in and with it appropriate praise and worship music. The feeling was that these people really had it together worship wise.

I then woke up feeling… Wow! What a wonderful dream! And that… Even though I was not going to get any credit for it…. The material I posted on the youtube.com/rockytopva site was going to be used well by others.

Dan Perez · 2025-11-02T18:06:24-0600

Always in His Presence said:
I already answered this.

Your posting style is so disjointed I can’t follow your reasoning.

Again if you would just state things plainly I could answer them more concisely.

You are just to hard to follow.

And I used the tenses and anyone will see that I have NOT taken away OR ADDED to. the Greek Text. and sorry that it is so simple to follow.

dan p

Larniavc · 2025-11-02T18:00:23-0600

Hentenza said:
I spend my teenage years during the 1970’s and our hourly rates back then were ridiculously low.

And yet people still managed to buy a house on a single semi skilled income.

BrotherJJ · 2025-11-02T17:59:11-0600

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
(MY NOTE: John the Baptist is sent to preach, the Baptism of Repentance to All the People of ISRAEL. John's mission was to: """Prepare the way for the coming LORD""". See Isa 40:3, Matt 3:3, Mk 1:3, Lk 3:4.)

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on the One that would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(MY NOTE: John the Baptist is sent to ISREAL to preach, the Baptism of Repentance. John's foretold mission was to: "Prepare the way for the coming LORD". John proclaimed: believe on him which should come after John, that is, on Christ Jesus. Through whom remission/pardon of sin would be realized.)

Water baptism was a commandment given by Jesus, Peter & others.

Emblem definition: a symbolic representation of a particular quality or concept.

Water baptism isn't the first breath of one's new spiritual life/birth. Water baptism is an outward Emblem/symbolic representation. A public statement of belonging to the Lord, self denial, when immersed (buried emblem) & rise up (resurrection emblem).

You're publicly partaking in a commanded act of obedience/a gateway to discipleship. This undertaking is an outward physical expression, of the inner spiritual transformation you received, when Christ baptized you with His eternal life giving Holy Spirit.

Jesus also commanded partaking in communion. Although both these actions are commanded. Neither action is the doorway leading to eternal salvation. These events follow the salvation sealing Holy Spirit baptism, performed by Christ alone. See Matt 3:11, Lk 3:16, Mk 1:8, Jn 1:33, Acts 1:4-5, 2:38, 10:45, 11:16)

Jn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
(MY NOTE: It's Jesus Holy Spirit that gives born again spiritual life. Not any physical act one does)

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(MY NOTE: For by "ONE SPIRIT" we are "ALL" "BAPTIZED" "INTO ONE BODY! Translators capitalized Spirit to identify when referring the Holy Spirit. Only Christ can baptize with HIS salvation sealing forever indwelling Holy Spirit.)

Spiritual baptism is the event where, through repentance > from unbelief to belief/FAITH. Placed in Jesus sacrificial sin atoning death & resurrection. The believer is FOREVER (Jn 14:16) indwelt/BAPTIZED via Christ's salvation SEALNG (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14), eternal life giving (Jn 10:28) Holy Spirit!

Spiritual baptism doesn't require any hands or H2O.

Col 2:11 In whom also ""ye are circumcised with the circumcision"" ""made without hands"", in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh ""by the circumcision of Christ""
(MY NOTE: The baptism of the ETERNALLY SEALING (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, Eph 4:4) FOREVER INDWELLING (Jn14:16) Holy Spirit is a ""Spiritual Circumcision Covenant"" done ""by Christ Alone"", WITHOUT HANDS & WITHOUT WATER.)

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(MY NOTE: Circumcision of the heart, in the spirit)

Deut 30:6 (A) the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart,

Col 2:
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(MY NOTE: ""IN Him"". Find Spiritual connections Jn 17:20,21,22,23.)

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
(MY NOTE: KJV Dictionary Definition: Complete, 1.) Having no deficiency; perfect. And ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power. Col 2:10. The believer is made complete/perfect, by Faith ""IN Him"")

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
(MY NOTE: OT circumcision covenant was a physical sign of belonging to God's chosen covenant people. Spiritual circumcision covenant is divine, ""made without hands"", internal ""IN Him/IN you"" & transformative. This Spiritual circumcision is performed by Christ. A covenantal break from the old order sin nature, it's success enabled by by Christ' Holy Spirit now dwelling ""IN you""!)

SEALED
2 Tim 1:14 The Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you
(MY NOTE: The Holy Spirit dwelling within us > PRESENT TENSE. Is God's good deposit/down payment)

2 Cor 5:5 God, who also hath given unto us the "earnest" of the Spirit
(MY NOTE: God has > PAST TENSE, given us the earnest/Holy Spirit/a down payment/pledge DONE DEAL)

2 Cor 1:22 Who hath also "sealed us" & "given the earnest" of the Holy Spirit in our hearts
(MY NOTE: God has given the believer > PAST TENSE/DONE DEAL. The EARNEST = DEPOSIT/PLEDGE/PROMISE/SEAL)

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(MY NOTE: The gospel/good news of your salvation: you believed & were > PAST TENSE SEALED/DONE DEAL! With/by God's salvation sealing Holy Spirit promise)

Eph1:14 Which is the "earnest" of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession
(MY NOTE: The Holy Spirit by which only Christ baptizes. SEALS & FOREVER [Jn 14:16] indwells us. Is God's earnest = a down payment/pledge)

Eph 4:30 grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are "sealed" unto the day of redemption
(MY NOTE: Believers are SEALED until their next unrepentant sin? NO! SEALED until the day they receive their heavenly body. Christ's indwelling Holy Spirit, is Christ's pledge/promise that he will come for every believer. Jews received this "Promise" at the Acts 2 Pentecost, gentiles at Acts 10 Cornelius. And now any/every Jew of gentile that repents (from unbelief to belief) in Christ' death & resurrection. Is given/receives "IS SEALED" with the salvation sealing H/S. Promise)

Additional recourses:
Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words: Salvation
[ A-1,Noun,G4991, soteria ]
(b) of the spiritual and eternal deliverance granted immediately by God to those who accept His conditions of repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus, in whom alone it is to be obtained, Acts 4:12, and upon confession of Him as Lord, Romans 10:10; for this purpose the gospel is the saving instrument, Romans 1:16; Ephesians 1:13 (See further under SAVE);

Salvation - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

(MY NOTE: "ETERNAL DELIVERANCE GRANTED IMMEDIATELY" by God. To those who accept His conditions of repentance (from unbelief to belief) & faith in the Lord Jesus death & resurrection)

Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words: Seal - (Noun and Verb)
[ B-1,Verb,G4972, sphragizo ]
(d) ownership and security, together with destination, Revelation 7:3-Revelation 7:5 (as with the noun in Revelation 7:2; See A); the same three indications are conveyed in Ephesians 1:13, in the metaphor of the "sealing" of believers by the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon believing (i.e., at the time of their regeneration, not after a lapse of time in their spiritual life, "having also believed," not as AV, "after that ye believed;" the aorist participle marks the definiteness and completeness of the act of faith); the idea of destination is stressed by the phrase "the Holy Spirit of promise" (See also Ephesians 1:14); so Ephesians 4:30, "ye were sealed unto the day of redemption;" so in 2 Corinthians 1:22, where the Middle Voice intimates the special interest of the Sealer in His act;

Seal (Noun and Verb) - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

(NY NOTE: The SEAL is a promise/sign/seal of Ownership & Security. Conveyed in Eph 1:13, in the metaphor of the "SEALING" of believer, by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Action upon believing/at the time of their regeneration, NOT after a lapse of time in their spiritual life)

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: EARNEST -
(Noun) [ 1,,G728, arrabon ]
originally, earnest-money" deposited by the purchaser and forfeited if the purchase was not completed, was probably a Phoenician word, introduced into Greece. In general usage it came to denote "a pledge" or "earnest" of any sort; in the NT it is used only of that which is assured by God to believers; it is said of the Holy Spirit as the Divine "pledge" of all their future blessedness, 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; in Ephesians 1:14, particularly of their eternal inheritance. In the Sept., Genesis 38:17-Genesis 38:18, Genesis 38:20. In modern Greek arrabona is an "engagement ring."

Earnest (Noun) - Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

(MY NOTE: Denotes "a pledge or deposit by the purchaser". Christ/God the Son is the church purchaser (1 Cor 7:23, 2 pet 2:1, Mat 20:28, Mar 10:45, 1 Tim 2:6). Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. In modern Greek arrabona is an "ENGAGEMENT RING". The Holy Spirit deposited in-us 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, Eph 1:14 is an "ENGAGEMENT RING".)

During Jesus time an engagement/BETROTHAL was a legally binding contract. Marking the start of the marriage covenant. To show commitment the groom paid a bride price (Mohar). Jesus/our Bridegroom paid the ultimate price (1 Cor 6:20, 7:23, Acts 20:28, Eph 1:14). Hallelujah, praise the Lord, thank you Jesus. AMEN & Amen.

BPPLEE · 2025-11-02T17:42:47-0600

Fervent · 2025-11-02T17:41:41-0600

BobRyan said:
Not true.

As Luke 24 and Acts 17 prove ... long before 70 AD they already had what they referred to as "all the scriptures". So much so that Luke uses the term for his readers in those chapters without any hesitation.

you're inferring a scope that isn't present in the text. The septuagint was complete as well, and it wasn't until after the turn of the 2nd century that the "apocrypha" were excluded from the Hebrew canon

BobRyan said:
It is non-Christian Jews in Acts 17:11 , in the Synagogue, deciding for the Gospel based on "searching the scriptures".

Berea was heavily Hellenistic, so it is hghly likely the Scriptures those non-Christian Jews searched were one of the Greek translations.

BobRyan said:
Greek Jews were reading the Septuagint.

And what was the primary language of Berea?

BobRyan said:
There is nothing in the apocryphal Greek texts that is needed in Christianity. Not one of our doctrines needs it.

Your argument is circular.

BobRyan said:
In Luke 24 Luke speaks of Christ teaching from Moses and all the prophets. The greek additions were never considered inspired and were not included in the Hebrew Bible , and this was the case centuries before Christ.

The scope of the Hebrew Bible wasn't decided until after the 2nd century, whch is why Jamnia is important. Many of Jesus' quotes match the Greek translations, and Jesus references the contested books and even directly quotes from Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. The Jews excluded those books because they so strongly supported Christianity.

Belk · 2025-11-02T17:33:43-0600

dogs4thewin said:
and he has the right to appeal.

Yes. That is a given.

timewerx · 2025-11-02T17:29:56-0600

They knew that widening the income gap between the rich and poor (tax breaks, bailout options for the rich) is going to lead to this. Statistics prove this.

But whatever brings more money to their pockets. The love of money is the root of all evil.

I don't know what will work. Prayer? Or actually turning from their corrupt / flawed ways.

fhansen · 2025-11-02T17:26:21-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
The verse isn't collapsing the categories I highlighted. It's conditional: "if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." The conditional is not optional.

Hmm, funny, the passage sure presents it as optional. In fact, the conditional is always optional-that’s the point.

Dikaioumenoi said:
It defines the very category of those who truly share in Christ. So the category "share in Christ" refers to believers who persevere. This is clearly distinguished from the category of those who "taste" the heavenly gift (experience or exposure only), 6:4-6.

No, there’s no distinction made there about those who share in Christ not being able to fall away from Christ.

timewerx · 2025-11-02T17:25:56-0600

Mercy Shown said:
The Sabbath sits right there in the Ten Commandments. In fact, it has become the icon of the Law for many Sabbatarians. It is the punchline of many moralistic arguments and the centerpiece of Sabbatarian doctrine. To them, it is to be kept just as strictly as any of the other nine commandments. Yet the others carry natural, immediate consequences when violated. For example, if I kill someone, I may be killed myself or imprisoned for the rest of my life. If I covet my neighbor’s wife, I may end up in the hospital or the morgue. Sabbath breaking, however, has no such visible consequence. That creates a battleground where Christians often cross swords.

What fascinates me most is how people use the broad platitude “keep the Sabbath,” even to the point of wearing the label “Sabbath Keeper.” It certainly comes with the temptation to look down on those not “discerning enough” to agree with Sabbath keeping, and it can be an ego boost for those who enjoy a sense of spiritual superiority. Not all are like that, of course. There are many sincere Sabbath keepers who do so with humility and love, considering themselves no better than anyone else.

Yet for most who carry the label, the one thing they rarely address is the specifics of true Sabbath keeping. The moment one asks “How should it actually be practiced?” disagreements erupt. The Sabbath-keeping community is deeply divided over what is appropriate and what is not. It is far easier to remain in the comfort of the broad label than to open the can of worms and define the boundaries. Still, if Sabbath keeping is truly salvific, should the precise observance of it not be extremely important? One would hate to wear the label all their life only to discover they had been doing it wrong.

I could give examples, but for now, I will leave the worms in that can a little longer.

Jesus broke the Sabbath. These verses can't be explained away.

John 5:16-18

16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

I'm with Jesus here.

FreeinChrist · 2025-11-02T17:22:01-0600

PloverWing said:
So: Not a prophet, and not a messenger of God, but still being used by God. And not divine punishment of the nation, but divine correction of the nation. Is this closer to what you're trying to say?

The answer to my next question may be "God's ways are inscrutable", but I'll ask it anyway. The 2016 Republican primary had 17 different candidates at the start. Do you believe that God chose Trump in particular out of that field of candidates? If so, can you speculate about what qualities in Trump made God choose him as the agent of change, rather than Cruz, Kasich, Santorum, and so forth? (That is, I see that from your point of view, you'd want one of the Republicans to be president. But why do you believe that God chose Trump in particular, rather than one of the others?)

Truly, my purpose is to try to understand you and those like you who believe Trump is chosen by God to do God's work. I'm not trying to convert you or persuade you; obviously, you and I disagree and will continue to disagree. But I want to understand your point of view. You have said that "God chose Trump for this country in this time for His purpose", and I want to understand what you mean when you say that.

Some forget that God allowed bad rulers to lead as a way of punishing a nation. Jeroboam and Manasseh of Judah were bad kings.
Just because a man is the leader does not mean God approves of them.

Did God Pick Donald Trump? - Message Magazine

After Donald J. Trump was elected back in 2016, a friend of mine told me not to complain, because Trump’s presidency was what God...

www.messagemagazine.com

A deeper look at the passage demands that we pump the brake some, starting with the key word in the text, established – “the authorities… have been established by God”. The word sounds like a pretty energetic verb, invoking a sense of strong intent and purpose; people tend to establish things that they feel strongly about – like Foundations, Institutions and Monuments.

But that isn’t quite the case here, because the word used here for established isn’t an active verb at all! Instead, it’s a passive participle (“tetagmenai”) being used here. And while the word is derived from a verb (“tasso”) that means “to arrange, or set things in order”, the way that it is used here is altered because of the grammar. Instead of asserting that God is ordaining his personal choices for leadership in every election, Romans 13:1 is suggesting that leaders are in their position because God simply allows them to be there. It’s not so much that God is demonstrating HIS preference when a leader ascends to power; sometimes it’s more about God allowing that which is in place to remain, by divine forbearance.

This makes sense when you consider God’s painful lament given through the Prophet Hosea…

“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” (Hosea 8:4)

This passage shows that that some leaders somehow get elected/appointed without God’s approval. But the fact is that God is sovereign; therefore, any leader in any position can only be there with God’s approval! In short, ALL leaders are established because God allows them to be – regardless as to whether they reflect God’s ideal preference.

Trump is not representative of a godly leader in any way. He will say the right words then act differently. His many instances of fraud (Trump U, Trump Foundation, lies on tax forms, etc) do not reflect a godly man. The adultery in his life do not reflect God. The sexual assaut in his life do not reflect God. The tremendous amount of lying does not reflect God.

God allowed Trump to the presidency, but Trump will bring the country down. Thousands are losing jobs, including manufacturing ones. Housing is in a recession per Bessent. Tariffs have just groups such as farmers. Trump's recent agreement with China for soy farmers is less than what soy farmers would have gotten had not Trump started the tariffs in the first place. For many reasons, public opinion of Trump is the worst of any president 1st or 2nd term.

Fervent · 2025-11-02T17:21:59-0600

partinobodycular said:
We're still waiting to see how @Bradskii is going to achieve this feat, but I can guarantee you that it'll be some version of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

which is not an "is" statement so cannot be the bridge from is to ought, because the question then becomes how that was derived. And whether that is a moral absolute, since @Bradskii denies that such absolutes exist.

Fervent · 2025-11-02T17:19:53-0600

BobRyan said:
Your so-called "anti-christ Jews" in the case above are those Jews living at the time of Christ and also many centuries before Christ. Jews that kept sacred scripture preserved in the Temple and declared to be blessed by God for doing so, in Rom 3:1-4

By 90 AD the jews who were settling the canon were those who rejected Jesus, and the temple had been destroyed.

BobRyan said:
Rom 3
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

They were the ones entrusted with the oracles of God, entrusted with defining and preserving the Hebrew Bible, entrusted with that canonized text unchanged since the time of Malachi as their own historian points out.

Bashing them in the shoot-from-the-hip fashion we see in your post , is not in line with Paul's teaching in Rom 3

I'm not "bashing them", I'm pointing out that the exclusion of the Greek books that happened at the turn of the 2nd century by the Jews was an attempt to de-legitimize Christianity which was dependent on the Greek OT in the Old Greek and the Septuagint.

BobRyan said:
Heretics have existed in every age. That does not justify bashing the people of God in every age. I think we can all agree on this point

Acts 17:

Paul at Berea
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

You're reading your presuppositions into the text here

BobRyan said:
Paul at Berea
Acts 17:
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

1. They had what they call "Scriptures" long before the council of Jamnia

Yeah, and the Scriptures they had included the books excluded from the Hebrew corpus by the Jews.

BobRyan said:
The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

Luke 24:
26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

Luke's readers had the concept of "ALL the SCRIPTURES" in Luke 24. This was long before any so-called "Jamnia" event.

So then the Jews at Jamnia removed Scriptures when they excluded those books found in Greek.

BobRyan said:
Christ taught "from all the scriptures" according to Luke 24 and Luke's readers knew what that meant as they read his gospel

This is irrefutable.

Yeah, and Christ taught from the books excluded in the Protestant canon.

fhansen · 2025-11-02T17:19:27-0600

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is linguistically absurd. You're projecting English connotation back onto Greek. The meaning of a Greek word is not determined by what an English gloss happens to suggest in modern English. It's determined by its usage within the Greek corpus. This is translation theory 101. Languages encode meaning differently. Glosses are approximations, not carbon copies.

As a case in point: the English verbs "draw" and "haul" overlap in meaning, but they are not equivalents. You can "draw (run) a bath," but you cannot "haul a bath" (unless you plan to carry the tub down the street). That's how semantic range works.

Now extend that principle cross-linguistically: when a Greek term is rendered by an English gloss, the gloss represents only a slice of its range in that specific context, not its full conceptual map. So the fact that our English "draw" can, in some contexts, mean "lure" or "appeal" tells us precisely nothing about how ἑλκύω functions in Greek. Languages are not mirrors of one another; they organize meaning differently. Greek uses other words to convey some of the connotations our English word "draw" is able to cover. ἑλκύω is much more restrictive in its usage.

If John wanted to suggest attraction or enticement, he had clearer options. He would have used something like the prepositional compound προσελκύω (πρός + ἑλκύω), where πρός introduces a directional or intentional aspect, literally "to draw toward oneself." That can allow for a sense of "appeal," but not ἑλκύω by itself. So the fact that John uses ἑλκύω and not προσελκύω is significant. He emphasizes effectual drawing, not an optional lure the sinner might resist.

This whole thing is an unnecessary use of lots of words to create a rabbit trail into la-la land. Of course, the English doesn’t determine the Greek but both, for example, happen to take a simple word that first involves moving objects while also using it metaphorically to mean impelling internal movement of a person. And this use is a logical extension of the word’s original meaning. The real difference in this thread is in whether or not that effort is resistible.

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is a terrible attempt to make your point. ἑλκύω here describes an action resisted by the weight of its own result, not an unsuccessful attempt. The net is full, not empty. The verb still carries its normal force: "drag/haul with decisive power." The limitation lies not in the verb's weakness but in the fisherman's strength. The action succeeds too well; the net strains under the abundance.

So far from weakening the verb's meaning, the text reinforces its effectual sense (hence the rendering, "haul"). ἑλκύω consistently conveys the exertion of power sufficient to move the object. The problem is not that it "failed," but that it worked too effectively for human hands to manage.

No, the action fails because there was resistance! Otherwise, it would be like saying an irresistible force was, um, resistible. They caused the net to move and yet the net didn’t move. They moved the net with decisive power and yet the net didn’t move. Indecisive decisiveness? Etc.

Dikaioumenoi said:
The Father's drawing is what makes coming possible. So if that drawing can fail, then your view doesn't preserve human freedom; rather, it simply denies divine efficacy altogether. It implies that God can try to enable faith and still fail to enable it. Not just fail to persuade someone to come to Him, but fail even to make it possible for them to to do so.

Why? If I throw a man a life preserver and he refuses to grab hold does that mean I failed to make it possible for him to be saved?

Dikaioumenoi said:
That's not grace. That's horrifying impotence.

Oh, horrifying. Certainly no more horrific than the fate of the poor bloke whom God determines not to regenerate in your theology. At least in mine both have some part in the choice as to where they’ll spend eternity.

Dikaioumenoi said:
No, ἐπιστρέψας indicates a habitual, repeated action, not a momentary lapse. The context is a warning against false teachers and apostates: those who once had the appearance of godliness or exposure to truth but never experienced genuine internal transformation. Animals cannot change their nature. You could feed a dog only the finest meals, pampering that puppy with a lifestyle most human adults would only dream of, but the moment it vomits, you would still have to pull it away from it. The point of the proverb is precisely that a creature's nature does not change apart from God's supernatural work. Applied to people, those who repeatedly return to their former corruption reveal a heart that is fundamentally unchanged, not a regenerate believer momentarily stumbling.

You didn't address my reference to the contextual parallel in 1 John 2:19.

More importantly, we're off on an irrelevant tangent until you address the argument from John 6:44 that regeneration entails a real, effectual union with Christ. Anyone drawn by the Father is enabled and secured; to suggest they could fall away contradicts the very efficacy the text promises.

It’s simple, whoever perseveres to the end in doing God’s will, will be saved. And no one can predict their own perseverance BTW. And they may also be deceived about God’s will to begin with.

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is nonsensical. To effect a change is, by definition, to succeed in bringing it about. If the attempt fails, nothing has been effected. Saying "attempting counts as causation" is like claiming I caused a ball to score a goal because I kicked it, even though I missed the net entirely. My effort or intention is irrelevant; the only thing that counts as an effect is what actually happens.

I used "means" there in the sense of "intends". IOW, causation, simply, does not guarantee movement or effect, any more than attempting ἑλκύσαι (to haul in) their net guaranteed that it’d make it into the boat.

Dikaioumenoi said:
This is a misuse of 2 Cor. 5:20-21, which concerns the proclamation of the gospel -- Christ's reconciliation of the world externally, calling sinners to repentance -- not the internal, effectual work of salvation in the elect. The text addresses God's mission to the world, not a limitation on His sovereign power to secure the salvation of those He draws.

Everyone is appealed to. Some will respond and some will not. Those who do are reborn: forgiven and given a new heart and spirit. Some will turn out to be poor soil and some good. That's what we know. God wants none to perish (2 Pet 2:9). But yes, I know, “none” doesn’t really mean “none”- and God doesn’t really love the whole world-nor did Jesus die for it.

Dikaioumenoi said:
Suggesting God "stops short" to avoid producing "automatons" introduces a philosophical, not biblical, constraint on divine power.

No, it's just what He chooses to do, for our sake. To put it another way, love is a human choice even as it's a gift of grace to begin with, the ultimate choice for goodness over evil that comes to the extent that we choose and draw near to Him. That is our justice/righteousness and our salvation. If you don't yet understand that then you're probalby still just locked into word and concepts. You're faith is real, but needs further enlightenment.

Strong in Him · 2025-11-02T17:13:33-0600

Apple Sky said:
They don't interpret, that's the beauty.

They certainly do, if they teach flat earth.

jacks · 2025-11-02T17:13:02-0600

Rescued One said:
Who remembers George Washington's portrsit in every classroom?

And of course saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning.

DaisyDay · 2025-11-02T17:05:52-0600

BPPLEE said:
If Rete's story is true he should have a good civil case, what he alleges happened is a violation of his rights

Such suits are stacking up.

Akita Suggagaki · 2025-11-02T17:05:43-0600

Postvieww said:
Sounds like a typical I hate Trump rant. Our allies and enemies were either laughing at or shocked by the Biden fiasco. Demolished the White House??? Are you kidding?? If you are talking about the ballroom project, other presidents have also made physical changes and most likely they were at taxpayers expense. Trump is doing his best to save this nation from the certain demise we were headed for under liberal leadership.

Ya, a three sentence “rant” against the only person who can “save” this nation. Would you like to see a third term in spite of the current constitution?

Hentenza · 2025-11-02T17:05:43-0600

Apple Sky said:
They don't interpret, that's the beauty.

But they do. If they teach a flat earth based on scripture then they are indeed interpreting scripture and interpreting it wrong. No church teaches a flat earth so their interpretation is unique to them.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Rom 3​

Paul at Berea​

Paul at Berea​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Rom 3

Paul at Berea

Paul at Berea