The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."

Click to expand...

ἑλκύω means essentially the same as draw or drag in English. It doesn’t inform one about how much force is used, much less that the force is irresistible. That’s to add meaning to the word, to insert theological bias into the definition, a bias that the early Koine Greek-speaking Christians apparently didn’t have going by what we know of their theology. The word is also used to mean “attract” or “appeal” to.

Dikaioumenoi said:

mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.

Click to expand...

No one argues this point, or shouldn’t, at least, as this is classic Christianity.

Dikaioumenoi said:

These warnings describe those who are exposed to the blessings of God's gospel (tasting, seeing, or experiencing) without being truly regenerated. They illustrate the danger of false profession and the severity of rejecting God's gift. They do not demonstrate that the elect, those whom the Father draws and Christ saves, can finally fall away. The "return to death" is evidence of those who were never truly born of God (1 John 2:19).

Click to expand...

Purely speculative.

That’s the ideal, the goal, the purpose. You’ve made salvation into a black or white, all at once, all or nothing, either/or permanent proposition, which it is not. The very fact that Christians still struggle with sin at all shows that the change is not yet completed, that they’re not yet “perfected in love” to put it another way-that their drawing isn’t fully accomplished, that they’re still attracted to lesser, created, things over God above all else. This is why salvation is something to be worked out (Phil 2:10), the gifts given by God are to be invested with increase expected (Matt 25:14-28), we must make our calling and election sure (2 Pet 1:10).

Anyway, to a Christian, this idea that one can know with absolute certainty, with the knowledge that God has, whose names are written in the Book of Life, is foreign, arrogant, even. It involves a certain mere intellectual conceptualization regarding election and a subjective opinion about one’s own state of being, certainly not experience. We strive, with the help of grace, to attain to the resurrection of the dead (Phil 3:10-14). We don’t presume to be there already. Now, having said that, if one has much good fruit bearing witness to their sonship of God, fruit born of the love He’s poured into their hearts (Rom 5:5), then their assurance is, indeed, that much more warranted.

fhansen said:

ἑλκύω means essentially the same as draw or drag in English. It doesn’t inform one about how much force is used, much less that the force is irresistible. That’s to add meaning to the word, to insert theological bias into the definition, a bias that the early Koine Greek-speaking Christians apparently didn’t have going by what we know of their theology. The word is also used to mean “attract” or “appeal” to.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an example where the sense is "attract" or "appeal" without causative movement?

Semantic range does not erase semantic core. ἑλκύω consistently denotes an action that causes movement by the agent upon the object, never a mere invitation. Even in poetic contexts like Song 1:4 LXX, the movement is effectual: love's compulsion, not love's suggestion. John's own metaphorical uses (6:44; 12:32) retain this causative sense: an exertion of divine agency that results in actual movement.

At minimum, ἑλκύω in John 6:44 describes a decisive change of condition, from inability to ability. It does not describe an attempt to enable that might fail. It describes decisive movement. The governing verb is δύναται, not ἐλθεῖν; so to say the "drawing" is merely a non-compelling appeal is to claim that the Father's act of granting ability itself can fail. That creates a far greater theological problem than the one you imagine you're avoiding with a softened "appeal" interpretation.

If you hold that the drawing only confers ability but not faith itself, then the issue must be settled grammatically, not lexically. The argument for effectual calling (irresistible grace) rests on syntax, not the semantic range of ἑλκύω. The grammar of the text unites the one drawn with the one raised on the last day; it provides no category for a "drawn yet unraised" person. That is the crux. The grammar leaves no room for separating the enabled from the saved. You have not yet engaged my argument for this.

Further, your claim that ἑλκύω "doesn't inform one about how much force is used" mistakes precision for absence of meaning. The term does not quantify how hard the action is, but it does define who acts and that the movement decisively occurs. The lexical and contextual pattern is unidirectional causation, not mutual persuasion.

To summarize:

• ἑλκύω = effectual movement caused by the agent.
• "Appeal" = proposal awaiting response.

Those two concepts are not even lexical neighbors.

fhansen said:

No one argues this point, or shouldn’t, at least, as this is classic Christianity.

Click to expand...

I didn't make the statement as a controversial claim, but as an observation. So we agree, then, that apart from the Father's drawing, no man can come. But the text also tells us what happens when the Father does draw: that person comes and is raised up on the last day. That's the part of my argument you didn't engage.

fhansen said:

Purely speculative.

Click to expand...

There's nothing speculative about allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. The author of Hebrews himself contrasts those who "taste" with those who "share in Christ" (Heb. 3:14); Peter's proverb concludes that the dog "returns to its vomit," showing the unchanged nature of the animal. Neither text depicts a regenerate man losing life. They depict an unregenerate man reverting to form. If you believe these describe true believers losing salvation, it's your burden to argue that from the text, not mine to disprove your assertion.

Your last two paragraphs shift to sanctification and assurance. Let's focus on the argument I made from John 6:44 first. I assume you haven't conceded it, so I'm interested in your engagement with the points I raised.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Can you provide an example where the sense is "attract" or "appeal" without causative movement?

Semantic range does not erase semantic core. ἑλκύω consistently denotes an action that causes movement by the agent upon the object, never a mere invitation. Even in poetic contexts like Song 1:4 LXX, the movement is effectual: love's compulsion, not love's suggestion. John's own metaphorical uses (6:44; 12:32) retain this causative sense: an exertion of divine agency that results in actual movement.

At minimum, ἑλκύω in John 6:44 describes a decisive change of condition, from inability to ability. It does not describe an attempt to enable that might fail.

Click to expand...

Again, this is just speculative. You need to think of ἑλκύω simply in the same manner you'd think of draw, drag, haul, which can also imply "persuade", "attract" and "appeal" in English.
"When they did, they were unable to haul (ἑλκύσαι) the net in because of the large number of fish." John 21:6

Dikaioumenoi said:

But the text also tells us what happens when the Father does draw: that person comes and is raised up on the last day. That's the part of my argument you didn't engage.

Click to expand...

I did, but I'll present it more directly. Of course the elect will come to Him, by definition they must, or they wouldn't/couldn't be the elect. For our part we'll know with perfect certainly in the next life.

Dikaioumenoi said:

There's nothing speculative about allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. The author of Hebrews himself contrasts those who "taste" with those who "share in Christ" (Heb. 3:14);

Click to expand...

No, they're the same:
"We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." Heb 3:14

Dikaioumenoi said:

Peter's proverb concludes that the dog "returns to its vomit," showing the unchanged nature of the animal.

Click to expand...

Or one who returns to and affirms his old nature/the flesh after escaping the pollution of the world through the knowledge of Christ. This echoes Heb 3:14: "...if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end."

Dikaioumenoi said:

Further, your claim that ἑλκύω "doesn't inform one about how much force is used" mistakes precision for absence of meaning. The term does not quantify how hard the action is, but it does define who acts and that the movement decisively occurs. The lexical and contextual pattern is unidirectional causation, not mutual persuasion.

Click to expand...

Causation means to effect change, whether it succeeds in the effort or not. God can cause whatever changes He desires in us, by whatever power is required do so. But, by His wisdom and will He stops short of outright compelling that change, stops short of producing automatons IOW. This sense can be found in verses such as 2 Cor 5:20-21:
"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. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

fhansen said:

Again, this is just speculative.

Click to expand...

In what way is it speculative? It's not speculative; it's actually very easily verifiable. You're welcome to consult every instance of ἑλκύω you can find and fact-check me.

fhansen said:

You need to think of ἑλκύω simply in the same manner you'd think of draw, drag, haul, which also imply "persuade", "attract" and "appeal" in English.

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

"When they did, they were unable to haul (ἑλκύσαι) the net in because of the large number of fish." John 21:6

Click to expand...

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.

Apply that logic to John 6:44, and the analogy becomes absurd. You'd have to conclude that the Father's drawing is so powerfully effective that He somehow can't handle the results; heaven, apparently, has a processing backlog.

You're also still missing (I pointed this out in my first reply to you) the significance of the fact that δύναται (not ἐλθεῖν) is the governing verb in John 6:44. 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. That's not grace. That's horrifying impotence.

fhansen said:

I did, but I'll present it more directly. Of course the elect will come to Him, by definition they must, or they wouldn't/couldn't be the elect. For our part we'll know with perfect certainly in the next life.

Click to expand...

Can you quote where you did, or point me to the post #, so I can be sure I didn't miss it? I never saw you engage the grammatical argument I presented. My argument didn't focus on proving "the elect will come to Him," as if that needed proof. My argument concerned how the grammar of John 6:44 identifies the one "drawn" and the one "raised up" as the same individual. Therefore, those drawn are necessarily saved. At the same time, the text explicitly states that no one can come unless drawn. This establishes two, and only two, categories of human existence in relation to Christ:

• those unable to come (not drawn)
• those who will come (drawn)

There is no textual basis for a third category ("drawn but might not come"). Have I misunderstood you that you would disagree?

fhansen said:

No, they're the same:
"We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." Heb 3:14

Click to expand...

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. 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.

fhansen said:

Or one who returns to and affirms his old nature/the flesh after escaping the pollution of the world through the knowledge of Christ. This echoes Heb 3:14: "...if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end."

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

Causation means to effect change, whether it succeeds in the effort or not.

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

God can cause whatever changes He desires in us, by whatever power is required do so. But, by His wisdom and will He stops short of outright compelling that change, stops short of producing automatons IOW. This sense can be found in verses such as 2 Cor 5:20-21:
"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. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Click to expand...

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.

Suggesting God "stops short" to avoid producing "automatons" introduces a philosophical, not biblical, constraint on divine power. John 6:44 shows that the Father's drawing is effectual. Those He draws are enabled and secured, not left to human whim. God's sovereignty in salvation guarantees the result, not just the attempt.

Your "automaton" language shows a misunderstanding of effectual calling. The drawing of John 6:44 does not somehow force the sinner mechanically, as if divine action overrides human agency in a way that is coerced. The drawing is a transformative action that enables the sinner to willingly come to Christ. There is no external compulsion; the will is renewed such that it now aligns with God's purpose and therefore desires Christ naturally. The effectual work of God works in accordance with the person's renewed desires.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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. To put it another way, you kicked the ball but the ball didn't move, or failed to reach all the way to the goal. Again, God allows for our resistance.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Dikaioumenoi said:

The drawing is a transformative action that enables the sinner to willingly come to Christ.

Click to expand...

Totally a disctinction without a difference. If he's irressistibly drawn to will one way over the other then his willingness has been overidden and compromised from the get-go.

Brightfame52 said:

This ultimately makes man his own savior

Click to expand...

Oh. In truth that makes man willing, no matter how weakly at first, to allow God to save him; it's to not say "no"; it's to open the door when He knocks. And that small nascent willingness, itself prompted and aided by grace, is meant to be confirmed and to grow as we express and act upon the faith, hope, and love that is given us, and then those virtues, that righteousness, grows in strength and conviction as well.

God is a good parent, guiding His children into ever increasing righteousness, ever increasing love, ever increasing likeness to Himself. He doesn't wish to do it all for us because His purpose has always been to produce something, something grand, something greater than he began with, and to therefore not just do it all for us, and also to not just throw a number of otherwise worthless sinful wretches into heaven and the rest into hell. He's been patiently working to draw man to Himself and His plans since the beginning.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is not a response to what was said. ἑλκύω means ἑλκύω. There are no two words in any language that map from one to another with exactly the same range of meaning. You must show that ἑλκύω is sometimes used to "appeal" in a way that might be resisted. You have not done this.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're confusing semantic force (what the verb means) with situational outcome (what happened in the scene). ἑλκύω does not mean "to try to pull but fail." It means "to pull with force sufficient to cause movement." Whether the person succeeds does not change the verb's meaning.

If I say, "He tried to lift the boulder but couldn't," the verb "lift" still means "raise from the ground," not "attempt to raise." The failure lies in the man's strength, not in the semantics of "lift". You don't redefine "lift" every time someone throws out their back.

So in John 21:6, the "resistance" is not a redefinition of ἑλκύω into "attempted pulling," just as my inability to "lift" a 1,000 pound boulder does not indicate that the verb "lift" means "try to raise." The resistance of the boulder/fishnet is a function of the subject's weakness, not the verb's meaning.

In other words, all you've shown is that the verb ἑλκύω (or "lift," to continue the analogy) can occur in a sentence where the subject fails to accomplish the action. But of course it can. That's not the point. The point is that the verb itself means to effect movement; to bring about a decisive change of position. So when you apply "failure to effect movement" to John 6:44, you're not describing the sinner's reluctance; you're describing God's insufficiency to enable them.

You still seem to be missing this point (this is my third time making it; you've yet to address it): the operative verb in John 6:44 is δύναται ("is able") not ἐλθεῖν ("to come"). The Father's drawing (ἑλκύω) is what produces the ability that man otherwise lacks. Under your interpretation, then, what the Father fails to do is not merely persuade someone to come, but to succeed even in the attempt to make coming possible.

That's why your attempt to "soften" the meaning of ἑλκύω actually undermines your case rather than helping it. You're not attending to what the drawing modifies in the syntax of the verse. The drawing counteracts human inability. If ἑλκύω does not inherently convey effective movement, then your position reduces to this: the Father tries to render sinners able to come, but He may not succeed in doing even that. Your softened definition therefore removes any guarantee not that the enabled will come, but that anyone is truly enabled at all. That's the "horrifying impotence" I was referring to.

fhansen said:

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?

Click to expand...

You're missing the point of the argument. We're talking about your definition of ἑλκύω. The way you're using the term implies that the Father's enabling action in John 6:44 can itself fail. Your analogy about refusal doesn't touch that point at all. Rather, it assumes the person already has the ability.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, the removal of any guarantee that the Father will succeed in making it possible for people to come to Him is a truly horrifying idea. You said: "At least in mine both have some part in the choice as to where they'll spend eternity." No, they do not. That's the whole point you're missing. Your definition of ἑλκύω implies that we don't even know if the Father succeeds in giving people that opportunity.

I'll forego responding to your other comments for now. Many of our other points of dispute don't hold much relevance until we make some progress on the current discussion. I also want to emphasize, again, that you're not responding to the grammatical argument I offered on John 6:44, which, if left unchallenged, refutes the entirety of your position. So if you're not going to engage it, our whole conversation is fruitless. Here was that argument (EDIT: I'll just summarize this rather than restate the whole thing):

Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is one-to-one the one who is raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. Everyone whom the Father enables to come to Him will do so. That's implicit in the grammar of the verse. Jesus assumes no distinction between the one "enabled" and the one "raised." Thus, there is no third category in which one may be drawn but choose not to come. The drawing is effectual.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Gives/draws are conceptually identical in John 6 (see verse 65, which restates 44 but borrows the verb from 37 in the place of ἑλκύω).

fhansen said:

...

Click to expand...

Just letting you know, if you happen to have started reading my above reply before I posted this, that I edited the end to summarize the grammatical argument from John 6:44.

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is not a response to what was said. ἑλκύω means ἑλκύω. There are no two words in any language that map from one to another with exactly the same range of meaning. You must show that ἑλκύω is sometimes used to "appeal" in a way that might be resisted. You have not done this.


You're confusing semantic force (what the verb means) with situational outcome (what happened in the scene). ἑλκύω does not mean "to try to pull but fail." It means "to pull with force sufficient to cause movement." Whether the person succeeds does not change the verb's meaning.

If I say, "He tried to lift the boulder but couldn't," the verb "lift" still means "raise from the ground," not "attempt to raise." The failure lies in the man's strength, not in the semantics of "lift". You don't redefine "lift" every time someone throws out their back.

So in John 21:6, the "resistance" is not a redefinition of ἑλκύω into "attempted pulling," just as my inability to "lift" a 1,000 pound boulder does not indicate that the verb "lift" means "try to raise." The resistance of the boulder/fishnet is a function of the subject's weakness, not the verb's meaning.

In other words, all you've shown is that the verb ἑλκύω (or "lift," to continue the analogy) can occur in a sentence where the subject fails to accomplish the action. But of course it can. That's not the point. The point is that the verb itself means to effect movement; to bring about a decisive change of position. So when you apply "failure to effect movement" to John 6:44, you're not describing the sinner's reluctance; you're describing God's insufficiency to enable them.

You still seem to be missing this point (this is my third time making it; you've yet to address it): the operative verb in John 6:44 is δύναται ("is able") not ἐλθεῖν ("to come"). The Father's drawing (ἑλκύω) is what produces the ability that man otherwise lacks. Under your interpretation, then, what the Father fails to do is not merely persuade someone to come, but to succeed even in the attempt to make coming possible.

That's why your attempt to "soften" the meaning of ἑλκύω actually undermines your case rather than helping it. You're not attending to what the drawing modifies in the syntax of the verse. The drawing counteracts human inability. If ἑλκύω does not inherently convey effective movement, then your position reduces to this: the Father tries to render sinners able to come, but He may not succeed in doing even that. Your softened definition therefore removes any guarantee not that the enabled will come, but that anyone is truly enabled at all. That's the "horrifying impotence" I was referring to.


You're missing the point of the argument. We're talking about your definition of ἑλκύω. The way you're using the term implies that the Father's enabling action in John 6:44 can itself fail. Your analogy about refusal doesn't touch that point at all. Rather, it assumes the person already has the ability.


Yes, the removal of any guarantee that the Father will succeed in making it possible for people to come to Him is a truly horrifying idea. You said: "At least in mine both have some part in the choice as to where they'll spend eternity." No, they do not. That's the whole point you're missing. Your definition of ἑλκύω implies that we don't even know if the Father succeeds in giving people that opportunity.

I'll forego responding to your other comments for now. Many of our other points of dispute don't hold much relevance until we make some progress on the current discussion. I also want to emphasize, again, that you're not responding to the grammatical argument I offered on John 6:44, which, if left unchallenged, refutes the entirety of your position. So if you're not going to engage it, our whole conversation is fruitless. Here was that argument (EDIT: I'll just summarize this rather than restate the whole thing):

Grammatically, the αὐτὸν ("him") in both ἑλκύσῃ ("draws") and ἀναστήσω ("will raise") refers to the same person. Thus, the one drawn is one-to-one the one who is raised. This is easily seen if restating the logic of the verse contrapositively:

"If he is able to come, then the Father [has drawn] him, and I will raise him up."

Who is the one raised? The one enabled to come; the one drawn by the Father. Everyone whom the Father enables to come to Him will do so. That's implicit in the grammar of the verse. Jesus assumes no distinction between the one "enabled" and the one "raised." Thus, there is no third category in which one may be drawn but choose not to come. The drawing is effectual.

This aligns with verse 37, which says, "all that the Father gives me will come to me." Gives/draws are conceptually identical in John 6 (see verse 65, which restates 44 but borrows the verb from 37 in the place of ἑλκύω).

Click to expand...

I'm not very knowledgeable in Greek grammer, but I asked ChatGpt.

"In Koine Greek, ἑλκύω generally means “to draw” or “to pull (toward oneself).” It denotes exertion of force with an intended motion, not necessarily successful completion of that motion.

Example: John 21:6 – they were unable to ἑλκύσαι (draw in) the net because of the multitude of fish.
→ The verb describes the attempted pulling, but the clause itself explains why it didn’t succeed.

Example: John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father ἑλκύσῃ him.”
→ There the emphasis is on effective drawing (inward motion toward Christ), but again, the verb’s base meaning is “draw/pull,” and context defines efficacy."

zoidar said:

I'm not very knowledgeable in Greek grammer, but I asked ChatGpt.

"In Koine Greek, ἑλκύω generally means “to draw” or “to pull (toward oneself).” It denotes exertion of force with an intended motion, not necessarily successful completion of that motion.

Example: John 21:6 – they were unable to ἑλκύσαι (draw in) the net because of the multitude of fish.
→ The verb describes the attempted pulling, but the clause itself explains why it didn’t succeed.

Example: John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father ἑλκύσῃ him.”
→ There the emphasis is on effective drawing (inward motion toward Christ), but again, the verb’s base meaning is “draw/pull,” and context defines efficacy."

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting this conflicts with something I said?

Dikaioumenoi said:

Are you suggesting this conflicts with something I said?

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought you said ἑλκύσαι indicate motion, when it's the exercise of power not the motion it describes.

Jesus' death was the sacrifice that took away the sin of the world believers and unbelievers.
It paid God's blood demand for Adams sin and humanity's and their sin who followed Adam.

But it is only belief in Jesus for Eternal Life, that gives God's free gift of Eternal Life to the person.

Jesus's resurrection defeated death, so if a person wants to defeat death they must believe in The only person "Jesus" who has defeated death.

zoidar said:

Yes, I thought you said ἑλκύσαι indicate motion, when it's the exercise of power not the motion it describes.

Click to expand...

Not entirely sure what you're meaning to say here. ἑλκύω denotes a decisive movement from one position to another. That is its semantic core. Whether the subject succeeds in the act is a question of the subject's ability, not the meaning of ἑλκύω, which is consistent with what you quoted.

Think again about the analogy I used: If I say "I am unable to lift a 1,000 pound boulder," my inability to do that doesn't define what "lift" means. "Lift" still means "to raise from the ground," not "to try to raise from the ground." One can try to lift (or ἑλκύω), and fail (e.g. John 21:6), but that does not change the definition of the word.

So you can say that the Father tries ἑλκύω but fails, if you really want to -- that's a meaningful use of the term -- but it doesn't mean what you might think it means. If the Father tries ἑλκύω but fails, that doesn't speak to the recipient's resistance of an offer; it speaks to the Father's failure to make it possible for them to even receive it. The opening clause of John 6:44 states that no one is able to come to Christ. The exception to that is if the Father draws (ἑλκύω) them. So what does the drawing of the Father do (if successful)? It moves them from the position of "unable" to "able." Thus, if you suggest that the Father can try ἑλκύω but fail, that means it is not even possible for the individual to come to Christ, because they have not been moved into that state of "able."

The point I was trying to make in response to fhansen is that this whole debate about the meaning of ἑλκύω is at best irrelevant, and at worst self-sabotaging for their view. Even if we were to accept "appeal/lure/woo" or something of the sort as a possible meaning for ἑλκύω, it can't be translated that way in John 6:44, because notice what the drawing modifies in the syntax of the verse: δύναται ("is able"). The Father's drawing in this context isn't merely an act of persuading people to come to Him; it is an act of making it possible for them to do so. That requires an understanding of the term that is decisive and effectual in its accomplishment, or we end up without any guarantee that salvation is possible.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Not entirely sure what you're meaning to say here. ἑλκύω denotes a decisive movement from one position to another. That is its semantic core. Whether the subject succeeds in the act is a question of the subject's ability, not the meaning of ἑλκύω, which is consistent with what you quoted.

Think again about the analogy I used: If I say "I am unable to lift a 1,000 pound boulder," my inability to do that doesn't define what "lift" means. "Lift" still means "to raise from the ground," not "to try to raise from the ground." One can try to lift (or ἑλκύω), and fail (e.g. John 21:6), but that does not change the definition of the word.

So you can say that the Father tries ἑλκύω but fails, if you really want to -- that's a meaningful use of the term -- but it doesn't mean what you might think it means. If the Father tries ἑλκύω but fails, that doesn't speak to the recipient's resistance of an offer; it speaks to the Father's failure to make it possible for them to even receive it. The opening clause of John 6:44 states that no one is able to come to Christ. The exception to that is if the Father draws (ἑλκύω) them. So what does the drawing of the Father do (if successful)? It moves them from the position of "unable" to "able." Thus, if you suggest that the Father can try ἑλκύω but fail, that means it is not even possible for the individual to come to Christ, because they have not been moved into that state of "able."

The point I was trying to make in response to fhansen is that this whole debate about the meaning of ἑλκύω is at best irrelevant, and at worst self-sabotaging for their view. Even if we were to accept "appeal/lure/woo" or something of the sort as a possible meaning for ἑλκύω, it can't be translated that way in John 6:44, because notice what the drawing modifies in the syntax of the verse: δύναται ("is able"). The Father's drawing in this context isn't merely an act of persuading people to come to Him; it is an act of making it possible for them to do so. That requires an understanding of the term that is decisive and effectual in its accomplishment, or we end up without any guarantee that salvation is possible.

Click to expand...

We don't argue against the fact that He makes it possible. We argue that our resistance can still thwart His purpose with it from actually happening. Your whole argument to begin with was that the word, by itself, necessarily indicates sufficient movement:

Dikaioumenoi said:

This is too soft a definition of ἑλκύω. The lexical range of ἑλκύω is primarily in the realm of "drag" or "haul" (see John 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; James 2:6). It's a term that expresses decisive action resulting in movement, not gentle persuasion. Even when used metaphorically, as in John 6:44 and 12:32, the same strength of meaning carries through, because the drawing accomplishes its intent. In John 6:44, it accomplishes (at the very least) an enablement to believe; in John 12:32, it accomplishes the worldwide extension of the gospel's appeal. These efforts do not fail. They describe an effectual change of position -- from unable to able to believe (6:44), and from restricted to universal scope in gospel proclamation (12:32). That's the semantic force of ἑλκύω, "draw."

Click to expand...