The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

[fhansen]

Yes according to the Bible. Where you think I saw the word Elect from ? The Bible!

Of course, but it's not only about the elect, as you put it. God wants all to repent, all to become the elect, IOW, as Paul made clear in his appeal to the Athenians. Also here in 2 Cor 5:20:
"We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God."

 

[Brightfame52]

Of course, but it's not only about the elect, as you put it. God wants all to repent, all to become the elect, IOW, as Paul made clear in his appeal to the Athenians. Also here in 2 Cor 5:20:
"We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Yes salvation is only for the elect. That scripture is only for the chosen of God

 

[fhansen]

Yes salvation is only for the elect. That scripture is only for the chosen of God

Except for the bible, where God wants all to be saved. No one can even know with 100% certainty that they're one of the elect anyway, for that matter.

 

[Fervent]

Similarly, if the Father attempts to ἑλκύω and fails, the failure is external to the verb itself. The verb still means "to haul/drag with decisive force." It is not inherently soft or conditional. Any context of failure is determined by circumstance, not the definition of ἑλκύω. Thus, the term should not be rendered "attract" or "woo" with the understanding of inherent resistibility.

TdNT (Littel Kittle) likely has the most extensive research on terms like this, and their conclusion is as follows; "There is no thought here of force or magic. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God of Christ which goes out to all (12:32) but without which no one can come (6:44). The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic. "

Calvinist attempts to turn it into a forceful action fail to understand that context determines meaning, and when it is used in the context of influence on humans the forceful implications are not present.

 

[fhansen]

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.

I see. You don’t even believe what you’re saying here yourself. No alternative makes any sense. It’s not His attempt to provide the possibility, BTW; He really does provide it.