The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

[Brightfame52]

God's focus is on man. It's a matter of knowing His will correctly.

God's focus is on Christ

 

[Brightfame52]

Another one of the saving results of the death of Christ is in order that, those He died for will receive the adoption of Sons, which requires sending the Spirit into their hearts Gal 4:4-6

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

All for whom Christ died, He redeemed Gal 3:13 and each one of them will in Gods good time , will be given the Spirit into their hearts confirming, validating their adoption of Sons. They will know God as their Father ! 8

 

[fhansen]

God's focus is on Christ

Because of what He does for man. God doesn't need man to exist at all, but obviously wants him to exist, and loves him intensely. Salvation is all about meeting man's needs, to the glory of God.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Alright, and that's why I asked. Why would God need to be patient with them when the means are totally His to make happen or effect?

You're answering the question. "Means" refers to the way of achieving something. God's patience concerns the temporal unfolding of what He has eternally decreed. His decree includes not only the fact that the elect will repent, but when and how they will. Regeneration and faith occur in time, not from eternity. God's patience, then, is His longsuffering toward the elect prior to that appointed moment, not hesitation or limitation in His power to bring it about.

And as I keep repeating in one way or another, enabling means enabling, not causing. I'm able to refrain from overeating; I don't always do so. In the case of salvation, I can refuse to come.

Yes, you keep repeating the same point without engaging what I am actually saying. It's like you have in mind responding to a particular argument, rather than paying attention to what argument it is I have actually made. You are conflating two issues here. Let me clarify the distinction, once more:

1. The drawing as enabling is decisive. You've suggested that the Father's drawing (ἑλκύω) can fail. But John 6:44 explicitly ties the ability to come to being drawn: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." The drawing is the act that makes coming possible. If the Father's drawing could fail, then coming would not be possible for that person. The very point of the conditional is that enablement (the drawing) is necessary; failure here means impossibility. Your repeated objection -- "enabling does not mean causing" -- misses this entirely, because the verse is about enablement itself, not human response. How is one able to come to Christ at all, if the enablement (ἑλκύω) can fail?
2. Grammar connects enablement to salvation. This is a separate issue! It is only with the addition of the final clause that we get anything relevant to the question of whether or not those drawn actually come. This is a separate issue to the above. I have not once argued that ἑλκύω itself tells us that one actually will come. The argument concerning the meaning of ἑλκύω is that it does not fail to bring about enablement (which is why your argument that it can fail does not help your position; this is the point I have been trying to press). The argument that ἑλκύω implies that the enabling act is effectual in actually producing faith is a grammatical one based on how the final clause ("and I will raise him up on the last day") relates to what came before it. The argument there is that, grammatically, the text equates the one enabled to come (the "him" drawn") with the one who will actually be saved (the "him" raised). The verse itself assumes that all whom the Father draws (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be saved. There is no distinction made in the grammar between those enabled and those actually raised on the last day. Thus, in addition to point #1 above, it is also the case that the act of drawing, by virtue of its grammatical linkage to the raising, cannot "fail" in achieving its intended outcome. Nevertheless, this conclusion is not implied by ἑλκύω itself. It is an additional grammatical point.

Ok, if he comes to me, he's been drawn, and I will raise him up, providing he remains, produces good fruit, etc.

This is not grammatically defensible. The "him" in the drawing and the "him" in the raising are grammatically identical. There is no conditional or caveat in the Greek tying the raising to "remaining" or "producing fruit." Those are theological interpretations imposed on the text. Grammatically, all whom the Father draws will be raised. Anything else is reading something into the text that the language itself does not say. You can say, if you want to, that remaining and producing good fruit do indeed occur in true salvation (and I'll agree with you on that much), but what the grammar of the text will not allow is the conclusion that the one drawn might not do this.

"No one can come to me (-Q) unless the Father who sent me draws him (-P), and I will raise him up on the last day (R)."

= -Q if -P and R, which, stated formally, is (-P --> -Q) ^ R, the contrapositive of which is (Q --> P) ^ R, which reads:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father who sent me has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

If Sam is able to come to Christ, then it is because the Father has drawn Sam, and Jesus will raise Sam up on the last day.

ἀναστήσω is a future indicative. There is a promise here to raise someone up on the last day. Who is that someone? It is the same individual throughout the verse: the one drawn; the one able to come. Thus, the text is making two claims, one explicit, one implicit:

1. The explicit: the Father's drawing MUST succeed in order for it to be POSSIBLE for someone to come to Christ.
2. The implicit: being drawn by the Father one-to-one results in being raised up on the last day. Thus, the Father's act of enablement is effectual in bringing about the intended outcome.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

That perfect being can love-He is love- and can delight as that imperfect being falls in love with love- and becomes perfected in love by the power of His grace. Love, necessarily, is both a gift, and a choice, of ours-and one that grows as we express or "invest" that gift. That perfect being revels as man blossoms into fulfiling his purpose, to become increasingly like Himself. That's the nature of love, to want the very best, the highest good, for the other.

I'm not sure you're grasping the point of my question: "Can a perfectly holy and righteous being delight in that which is less than perfectly holy and righteous (man), more than that which is (Himself)?"

The question concerns the nature of holiness and righteousness. Perfect holiness and righteousness entail delighting preeminently in what is perfectly holy and righteous. If God's ultimate focus were on man rather than on Himself (that is, if the manifestation of His glory is not what drives His creative and redemptive purposes), then His ultimate delight would be directed toward what is imperfect. By definition, that would be unholy and unrighteous, a contradiction to His perfect nature.

Scripture repeatedly shows that God's ultimate delight is in His own holiness, wisdom, and glory (e.g., Isa. 43:6-7; 44:6; 48:9-12; 49:3; 61:3; 1 Sam. 12:20-22; Jer. 13:11; Hab. 2:14; Col. 1:16; Heb. 2:10; Rev. 1:8), including explicit references of this motive in His redemptive purposes (Ps. 25:7, 11; 79:9; Jer. 14:7; Acts 15:14; Rom. 1:5; Eph. 1:5-6; 1 John 2:12).

It is right -- and necessary -- for God to esteem Himself above all else, because nothing is more worthy of admiration than He is. To value His creatures above Himself would invert worth, constituting self-denial incompatible with His perfections. Human-centered theological tendencies often reflect our own rebellious desire to be God, minimizing the vast chasm between His greatness and our unworthiness.

You say, "That's the nature of love, to want the very best, the highest good, for the other." Well, what is the very best for us? Our greatest happiness is to know and enjoy God, which is only possible because He delights supremely in Himself and manifests His glory fully. If God's delight were primarily in sparing judgment or focusing solely on His grace, He would be withholding Himself from us (our greatest joy) and thus loving us less than He does. By delighting in Himself -- and thereby demonstrating fully who He is, in all His attributes -- God gives Himself to us for our enjoyment. In exalting His glory, He shares Himself with His creatures, allowing them to know and enjoy Him. That is the height of divine love; the Creator loving His own glory so perfectly that He shares it, giving us the supreme joy of participating in it.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Normally I post your reply or part of your reply and ask ChatGPT if it is correct.

Well that in itself is problematic. Any statement you pull from our discussion does not contain the full context of it.

I shouldn't have to point out that if you're relying on AI to determine what is accurate, you have no business participating critically in this discussion (by that, I mean, I'm being overly gracious in entertaining your objections, not that you can't, of course, say whatever you please). I'm happy to answer questions, explain my reasoning, or engage with your own objections, but outsourcing your thinking to a fallible AI is intellectually lazy at best and disqualifying at worst. AI is not trustworthy. It can help retrieve information (and even then, it's not always reliable and can be manipulated -- whether intentionally or not -- to support whatever you want, depending on how you word your prompt), but it cannot replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis.

You said in your post #64:

Yes, which I clarified and expanded on in post #95. You've not interacted with any of the reasoning laid out there. You're simply being argumentative at this point.

 

[zoidar]

Well that in itself is problematic. Any statement you pull from our discussion does not contain the full context of it.

I shouldn't have to point out that if you're relying on AI to determine what is accurate, you have no business participating critically in this discussion (by that, I mean, I'm being overly gracious in entertaining your objections, not that you can't, of course, say whatever you please). I'm happy to answer questions, explain my reasoning, or engage with your own objections, but outsourcing your thinking to a fallible AI is intellectually lazy at best and disqualifying at worst. AI is not trustworthy. It can help retrieve information (and even then, it's not always reliable and can be manipulated -- whether intentionally or not -- to support whatever you want, depending on how you word your prompt), but it cannot replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis.

Of course I agree the ChatGPT can't "replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis." But it was the only way for me to question your grammatical claims, since I don't know Greek grammar myself.

Yes, which I clarified and expanded on in post #95. You've not interacted with any of the reasoning laid out there. You're simply being argumentative at this point.

What you have laid out grammatically is impossible for me to interact with. Sorry! It's too complicated. I don't even know how to interact with it. How can I fact check that you aren't making a liguistic error or more so drawing the wrong conclusions from the grammar?

 

[Brightfame52]

Because of what He does for man. God doesn't need man to exist at all, but obviously wants him to exist, and loves him intensely. Salvation is all about meeting man's needs, to the glory of God.

No because of what He did for God and His Glory

 

[fhansen]

You're answering the question. "Means" refers to the way of achieving something. God's patience concerns the temporal unfolding of what He has eternally decreed. His decree includes not only the fact that the elect will repent, but when and how they will. Regeneration and faith occur in time, not from eternity. God's patience, then, is His longsuffering toward the elect prior to that appointed moment, not hesitation or limitation in His power to bring it about.

It's not about His limitations, it's about man's reluctance. And 2 Pet 3:9 is not about just the elect, either, but about all men, as Paul understood as well:

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:22-31

Yes, you keep repeating the same point without engaging what I am actually saying. It's like you have in mind responding to a particular argument, rather than paying attention to what argument it is I have actually made. You are conflating two issues here. Let me clarify the distinction, once more:

1. The drawing as enabling is decisive. You've suggested that the Father's drawing (ἑλκύω) can fail. But John 6:44 explicitly ties the ability to come to being drawn: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." The drawing is the act that makes coming possible. If the Father's drawing could fail, then coming would not be possible for that person. The very point of the conditional is that enablement (the drawing) is necessary; failure here means impossibility. Your repeated objection -- "enabling does not mean causing" -- misses this entirely, because the verse is about enablement itself, not human response. How is one able to come to Christ at all, if the enablement (ἑλκύω) can fail?
2. Grammar connects enablement to salvation. This is a separate issue! It is only with the addition of the final clause that we get anything relevant to the question of whether or not those drawn actually come. This is a separate issue to the above. I have not once argued that ἑλκύω itself tells us that one actually will come. The argument concerning the meaning of ἑλκύω is that it does not fail to bring about enablement (which is why your argument that it can fail does not help your position; this is the point I have been trying to press). The argument that ἑλκύω implies that the enabling act is effectual in actually producing faith is a grammatical one based on how the final clause ("and I will raise him up on the last day") relates to what came before it. The argument there is that, grammatically, the text equates the one enabled to come (the "him" drawn") with the one who will actually be saved (the "him" raised). The verse itself assumes that all whom the Father draws (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be saved. There is no distinction made in the grammar between those enabled and those actually raised on the last day. Thus, in addition to point #1 above, it is also the case that the act of drawing, by virtue of its grammatical linkage to the raising, cannot "fail" in achieving its intended outcome. Nevertheless, this conclusion is not implied by ἑλκύω itself. It is an additional grammatical point.

This is not grammatically defensible. The "him" in the drawing and the "him" in the raising are grammatically identical. There is no conditional or caveat in the Greek tying the raising to "remaining" or "producing fruit." Those are theological interpretations imposed on the text. Grammatically, all whom the Father draws will be raised. Anything else is reading something into the text that the language itself does not say. You can say, if you want to, that remaining and producing good fruit do indeed occur in true salvation (and I'll agree with you on that much), but what the grammar of the text will not allow is the conclusion that the one drawn might not do this.

"No one can come to me (-Q) unless the Father who sent me draws him (-P), and I will raise him up on the last day (R)."

= -Q if -P and R, which, stated formally, is (-P --> -Q) ^ R, the contrapositive of which is (Q --> P) ^ R, which reads:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father who sent me has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

If Sam is able to come to Christ, then it is because the Father has drawn Sam, and Jesus will raise Sam up on the last day.

ἀναστήσω is a future indicative. There is a promise here to raise someone up on the last day. Who is that someone? It is the same individual throughout the verse: the one drawn; the one able to come. Thus, the text is making two claims, one explicit, one implicit:

1. The explicit: the Father's drawing MUST succeed in order for it to be POSSIBLE for someone to come to Christ.
2. The implicit: being drawn by the Father one-to-one results in being raised up on the last day. Thus, the Father's act of enablement is effectual in bringing about the intended outcome.

You’re not wanting to understand. The arguments I've submitted are sound. God provides the ability to come. You’ve determined that the drawing is decisive as in necessarily completing its job, God’s intention. But God can certainly fail if He chooses to associate man with the work of His grace, as has been taught, if man’s participation to one degree or another is desired, IOW.

And even if I conceded your point regarding John 6:44, it only means that Jesus was focused on the elect there, those He knows will come. I know the gospel and Scripture too well to be unable to flesh out the meaning of such a concise, isolated statement with all the other concepts and criteria involved in coming to God, and remaining there. I know that many are called and few are chosen while the elect are simply those who’ve been called and shown themselves to be good soil by the end of the day. And until then I know that people can deceive themselves all day along as to whether or not they’re even among those who’re called, those who are drawn and have come, and will remain, rendering the criteria a somewhat academic point until we receive the definitive verdict in the end.

 

[zoidar]

It's not about His limitations, it's about man's reluctance. And 2 Pet 3:9 is not about just the elect, either, but about all men, as Paul understood as well:

"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” Acts 17:22-31

You’re not wanting to understand. The arguments I've submitted are sound. God provides the ability to come. You’ve determined that the drawing is decisive as in necessarily completing its job, God’s intention. But God can certainly fail if He chooses to associate man with the work of His grace, as has been taught, if man’s participation to one degree or another is desired, IOW.

And even if I conceded your point regarding John 6:44, it only means that Jesus was focused on the elect there, those He knows will come. I know the gospel and Scripture too well to be unable to flesh out the meaning of such a concise, isolated statement with all the other concepts and criteria involved in coming to God, and remaining there. I know that many are called and few are chosen while the elect are simply those who’ve been called and shown themselves to be good soil by the end of the day. And until then I know that people can deceive themselves all day along as to whether or not they’re even among those who’re called, those who are drawn and have come, and will remain, rendering the criteria a somewhat academic point until we receive the definitive verdict in the end.

One thing I think I have learned in this discussion. Grammar is just one part of lingustics. It takes more than grammar to get the right interpretation.

 

[Brightfame52]

And 2 Pet 3:9 is not about just the elect, either, but about all men, as Paul understood as well:

Yes it is only about the elect

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

You’re not wanting to understand. The arguments I've submitted are sound. God provides the ability to come.

It's not an issue of my understanding. The issue is you're wanting to force me to argue something I haven't argued. Let's make this very simple.

You have said that the drawing of the Father (in John 6:44) can fail, correct?

The drawing of the Father (in John 6:44) makes salvation possible, correct? It enables one to come to Christ.

How is it possible, then, for one to come to Christ, if the Father's act of enabling them, can fail? You keep saying "God provides the ability to come." That contradicts your earlier argument that God's provision of that ability can fail.

We're not talking about whether or not the drawing is effectual in producing faith. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, my argument that it is has nothing to do with the meaning of ἑλκύω itself. We were talking about the meaning of ἑλκύω. You argued that ἑλκύω in John 6:44 can fail. Yet does not ἑλκύω refer to God's provision of the ability to come? How then is it possible to come, if God's attempt to provide the ability can fail?

I'm not arguing for my point of view right now; I'm critiquing the consistency of yours. I'm trying to show you ἑλκύω means a decisive movement from one position (inability) to another (ability). That does not mean that the movement in view is necessarily from unbelief to irresistible faith. The meaning of ἑλκύω is not the basis of that argument. That is a different argument. What I am focused on right now is trying to show you that your attempt to soften the definition of ἑλκύω does not aid your point of view, nor does it challenge mine.

 

[Brightfame52]

Christs saving death will result in everyone He died for, receiving a Divine Call into the enjoyment of the eternal inheritance. Heb 9:14-15
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Eph 1:13-14

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth[The Call], the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.9

 

[zoidar]

Well that in itself is problematic. Any statement you pull from our discussion does not contain the full context of it.

I shouldn't have to point out that if you're relying on AI to determine what is accurate, you have no business participating critically in this discussion (by that, I mean, I'm being overly gracious in entertaining your objections, not that you can't, of course, say whatever you please). I'm happy to answer questions, explain my reasoning, or engage with your own objections, but outsourcing your thinking to a fallible AI is intellectually lazy at best and disqualifying at worst. AI is not trustworthy. It can help retrieve information (and even then, it's not always reliable and can be manipulated -- whether intentionally or not -- to support whatever you want, depending on how you word your prompt), but it cannot replace genuine comprehension or careful exegesis.


Yes, which I clarified and expanded on in post #95. You've not interacted with any of the reasoning laid out there. You're simply being argumentative at this point.

I think it's unfair to say I was lazy using AI. I spend many hours with AI, reading and reflecting before I gave you my reply.

 

[fhansen]

Yes it is only about the elect

Ok, but not according to the Bible. You could address Paul’s words to the Athenians there.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

I think it's unfair to say I was lazy using AI. I spend many hours with AI, reading and reflecting before I gave you my reply.

I appreciate the engagement and don't want to discourage it. My concern is that you're attempting to challenge me on something you've admitted you're not personally very familiar with. That approach doesn't make much sense. A more productive alternative would be to ask for clarification or for me to defend my explanations. I'm happy to do that. But using AI to object to something you admit you aren't familiar with comes across as more adversarial than constructive, whether that was your intention or not.