The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

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.

Click to expand...

That is true!

Dikaioumenoi said:

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."

Click to expand...

As far as I get this the word ἑλκύω doesn't explain the reason the Father fails to draw the person. It can be because the person is resisting the drawing or it can be that the pull isn't strong enough or something else. It's context that determines why the drawing fails.

“He failed to lift the boulder.”

The verb "lift" means “to raise something upward.”

The sentence tells you he did not succeed in doing that action.

But the verb itself (lift) doesn’t tell you why the attempt failed.

The cause of failure could be any number of things:

the boulder’s weight,

the person’s weakness,

slippery footing,

injury, etc.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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...

fhansen said:

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:

Click to expand...

What I'm trying to point out to you is that your understanding of ἑλκύω necessitates that God does not necessarily make it possible. That is the implication of what you are saying, whether intended or not. What is the verb in John 6:44 that ἑλκύω conceptually modifies? δύναται, "is able." The drawing act of the Father is an act of moving the recipient from the state of "unable" to the state of "able." So if you say that this drawing can fail, what you are saying is that there is no guarantee that the Father succeeds in making it possible for people to come to Him.

I understand the point you're wanting to make regarding John 6:44 -- just because someone can come doesn't mean they will -- but what you're missing is that the semantics of ἑλκύω have nothing to do with that debate. ἑλκύω doesn't grammatically answer the question of whether or not someone actually comes to Christ. It answers the question of whether or not someone is able to do so. So when you suggest that ἑλκύω itself is not guaranteed to succeed, what you're implying is that God can attempt to make it possible for someone to come to Him, but there is no guarantee that attempt will succeed, that is, in making it possible.

It does not hurt your position in any way, in other words, to agree with me that ἑλκύω refers to a decisive movement from one position to another. That is not where the argument for irresistibility lies in the verse. The argument that the drawing (enabling) of the Father leads irresistibly to faith in Christ is a grammatical one, focused on the identity of αὐτόν ("him") grammatically uniting the actions of "draws" and "raised up."

zoidar said:

As far as I get this the word ἑλκύω doesn't explain the reason the Father fails to draw the person. It can be because the person is resisting the drawing or it can be that the pull isn't strong enough or something else. It's context that determines why the drawing fails.

Click to expand...

The word ἑλκύω explains decisive movement. Any failure of the act would be on the part of the subject's weakness, not the object's resistance.

What I'm arguing is that the Father's drawing does not fail. It can't.

Again, notice what the drawing is: the operative verb is δύναται ("is able"). It's negated by the substantive οὐδεὶς ("no one"). No one is able. That is what the drawing of the Father is a remedy for: man's inability. So to say that the Father can fail to draw a person is to say that the Father can fail to make it possible for them to come. Man's resistibility is not a factor in this because the whole point of the drawing is that man has no capacity to come anyway. To say that man can successfully resist the Father's drawing would be to say that the Father can try to make it possible for someone to come to Christ, and the recipient say, "no, I refuse to allow that possibility." Man has no say in whether he is able to do something. Ability/inability is a function of our nature.

In other words, saying that man can resist the Father's drawing misunderstands what the Father's drawing is in John 6:44. What would that resistance look like? If we say that someone could reply, "I refuse to act on God's enablement by coming to Christ," that's not a resistance of the Father's drawing. Rather, it presupposes that the Father's drawing has already succeeded: they are able to come.

Now... as a separate issue, beyond the semantics of ἑλκύω, I would argue from the grammar of John 6:44 that the Father's drawing (enabling) leads necessarily to coming, because the "him" drawn is grammatically the same individual as the "him" raised. Thus, the Father's drawing is effectual in not only enabling sinners to come to Christ, but ensuring that they will do so. However, that is an implication of pronouns of the verse, not of ἑλκύω's meaning or function itself.

Dikaioumenoi said:

The word ἑλκύω explains decisive movement. Any failure of the act would be on the part of the subject's weakness, not the object's resistance.

Click to expand...

> “They were not able to ἑλκύσαι the net” (John 21:6).

Here:

ἑλκύσαι still means “to draw (so as to move).”

οὐκ ἴσχυον (“were not able”) tells you they failed to accomplish it.

That failure does not redefine the verb’s meaning — the action type is still “drawing that would cause motion.”

Dikaioumenoi said:

What I'm arguing is that the Father's drawing does not fail. It can't.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can get this strictly from grammer, rather you need to look at the context.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Again, notice what the drawing is: the operative verb is δύναται ("is able"). It's negated by the substantive οὐδεὶς ("no one"). No one is able. That is what the drawing of the Father is a remedy for: man's inability. So to say that the Father can fail to draw a person is to say that the Father can fail to make it possible for them to come. Man's resistibility is not a factor in this because the whole point of the drawing is that man has no capacity to come anyway. To say that man can successfully resist the Father's drawing would be to say that the Father can try to make it possible for someone to come to Christ, and the recipient say, "no, I refuse to allow that possibility." Man has no say in whether he is able to do something. Ability/inability is a function of our nature.

In other words, saying that man can resist the Father's drawing misunderstands what the Father's drawing is in John 6:44. What would that resistance look like? If we say that someone could reply, "I refuse to act on God's enablement by coming to Christ," that's not a resistance of the Father's drawing. Rather, it presupposes that the Father's drawing has already succeeded: they are able to come.

Now... as a separate issue, beyond the semantics of ἑλκύω, I would argue from the grammar of John 6:44 that the Father's drawing (enabling) leads necessarily to coming, because the "him" drawn is grammatically the same individual as the "him" raised. Thus, the Father's drawing is effectual in not only enabling sinners to come to Christ, but ensuring that they will do so. However, that is an implication of pronouns of the verse, not of ἑλκύω's meaning or function itself.

Click to expand...

Brightfame52 said:

@fhansen



Prov 19:21

Many thoughts there be in the heart of a man; but the will of the Lord shall dwell. (There be many plans in a person’s heart; but the Lord’s purpose shall stand, yea, it shall prevail.)

Click to expand...

And He wants all to repent, none to perish.2 Pet 3:9

zoidar said:

I don't think you can get this strictly from grammer...

Click to expand...

As I've argued, the grammar alone is sufficient to reveal this horrifying conclusion: If the Father fails to draw someone, it remains impossible for that person to come to Christ.

Theologically, then, it is inconceivable that the Father's drawing could fail.

fhansen said:

And He wants all to repent, none to perish.2 Pet 3:9

Click to expand...

Who is Peter addressing? "The beloved" (v. 1), whom he specifically contrasts with "the scoffers" (v. 3). When he says, "God is being patient toward you," the pronoun "you" (vv. 1-2, 8-9) is contextually distinct from "them" (3-5). The patience he describes is for the purpose of granting time for repentance, but that patience is directed specifically to "you" (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς), not to all humanity indiscriminately.

If God's patience were truly universal, one could question why Christ would ever return, since greater patience could always save more. But if the patience is directed to the elect scattered abroad ("you," "the beloved"), then the timing of His return is coherent: it occurs as soon as the last of the elect come to faith, fulfilling the purpose of that patience.

πᾶς ("all") and τὶς ("anyone") carry semantic range that must be interpreted by context. The Greek does not automatically imply every individual without exception; rather, these terms indicate the full scope of a defined group. In 2 Pet. 3:9, they are applied to those already addressed as "the beloved," not to the scoffers. μακροθυμεῖ ("he is patient") is directed εἰς ὑμᾶς ("toward you"), with the participle μὴ βουλόμενός ("not wishing") modifying that patience, and everything following it functioning as the object of his willing. In this context, τινας and πάντας are therefore understood as referring specifically to members of the beloved group (i.e., any and all of them), the scope of God's patience, not to every individual universally.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Who is Peter addressing? "The beloved" (v. 1), whom he specifically contrasts with "the scoffers" (v. 3). When he says, "God is being patient toward you," the pronoun "you" (vv. 1-2, 8-9) is contextually distinct from "them" (3-5). The patience he describes is for the purpose of granting time for repentance, but that patience is directed specifically to "you" (μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς), not to all humanity indiscriminately.

If God's patience were truly universal, one could question why Christ would ever return, since greater patience could always save more.

Click to expand...

And why would God need to be patient with anyone and with what they may do if He's already predetermined that they'll come. The truth is that you don't even know with 100% certainty that the "you" here, the beloved, is speaking of you. Or that you'll necessarily persevere. That's a subjective opinion, a status people appropriate for themselves.

According to Scripture not all will be saved, so apparently patience doesn't guarantee that the person will repent. God knows at what point a person is no longer salvageable.

Brightfame52 said:

God's purpose will prevail, and you say it won't. Is man greater than God?

Click to expand...

Who said that? God calls the shots-and if He wants you to play a part in choosing your final destiny, in choosing good over evil, life over death, that's up to Him, not you or me. To put it anotherc way, when Christianity is well understood we know that love is both a gift, and a choice, and one that we're obliged to make and to live by, now bound to and remaining in the very Source of that love.

Brightfame52 said:

Do you realize that you are in opposition to the saving death of Christ?

Click to expand...

I know that I'm consistent with His gospel as received, understood, and taught by His church for the last 2+ millenia and supported by Scripture. And that if you don't understand the last sentence of my post that you've replied to here then you have a ways to go in scraping the surface of the Christian faith.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What I'm trying to point out to you is that your understanding of ἑλκύω necessitates that God does not necessarily make it possible. That is the implication of what you are saying, whether intended or not. What is the verb in John 6:44 that ἑλκύω conceptually modifies? δύναται, "is able." The drawing act of the Father is an act of moving the recipient from the state of "unable" to the state of "able." So if you say that this drawing can fail, what you are saying is that there is no guarantee that the Father succeeds in making it possible for people to come to Him.

Click to expand...

If the drawing can fail it's only because while God makes it possible for people to come to Him, He leaves it up to them to assent, or not.

Dikaioumenoi said:

So when you suggest that ἑλκύω itself is not guaranteed to succeed, what you're implying is that God can attempt to make it possible for someone to come to Him, but there is no guarantee that attempt will succeed, that is, in making it possible.

Click to expand...

Not so. That's like saying I can give all the advantages to my child that pertain to acheiving a good life: good role models, recreation, socializing, religious and secular education, access to the greatest higher education with tuition and boarding paid, etc,- but if they then proceed to fail in life I'd be accused of not making it possible for them to have succeeded?!

Dikaioumenoi said:

It does not hurt your position in any way, in other words, to agree with me that ἑλκύω refers to a decisive movement from one position to another. That is not where the argument for irresistibility lies in the verse. The argument that the drawing (enabling) of the Father leads irresistibly to faith in Christ is a grammatical one, focused on the identity of αὐτόν ("him") grammatically uniting the actions of "draws" and "raised up."

Click to expand...

1) The elect will be drawn, of course
2) The elect will come, of course
3) The elect wil be raised up, of course.

Does that mean that all who are drawn will necessarily come? Or that all who come will necessarily remain? No and no.

fhansen said:

And why would God need to be patient with anyone and with what they may do if He's already predetermined that they'll come.

Click to expand...

Because God's decree does not eliminate means; it establishes them. His patience is not uncertainty about the outcome; it's the ordained space in which the elect are brought to repentance according to His timing.

fhansen said:

If the drawing can fail it's only because while God makes it possible for people to come to Him, He leaves it up to them to assent, or not.

Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. In John 6:44, ἑλκύω modifies δύναται ("is able"), not ἐλθεῖν. The Father's drawing is what effects the ability to come. If the drawing were to fail, God hasn't made it possible. That is precisely what the drawing does: it makes coming to Christ possible.

fhansen said:

Not so. That's like saying I can give...

Click to expand...

Again, you're not paying attention to what the argument is. Your analogy assumes God has already given something. The text says the Father's drawing enables coming: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them." That drawing is what makes coming possible. So if someone can come, they have been drawn.

How, then, can it makes sense to say it is possible for someone to come, yet the Father's drawing -- the very act that makes it possible -- also fail?

You're wanting to jump ahead and say the Father's drawing doesn't necessitate that people will actually come to Christ. But that's not what we're disputing at this point. What we're concerned with at the moment is that the drawing is an enabling act of the Father that makes salvation possible. So if ἑλκύω can fail, salvation is not obtainable. The argument that the Father's enabling (drawing) activity does bring people effectually to Christ is a different point made from the grammar of the verse, not the meaning of ἑλκύω itself.

fhansen said:

1) The elect will be drawn, of course
2) The elect will come, of course
3) The elect wil be raised up, of course.

Does that mean that all who are drawn will necessarily come? Or that all who come will necessarily remain? No and no.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. But not for any reason discussed above. What necessitates the conclusion that all who are drawn (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be raised is that the grammar of the verse identifies the same individual in both clauses. The "him" who is drawn is the same "him" who will be raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

This becomes even clearer when phrased contrapositively:

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

Who will be raised up on the last day? The one who is drawn/enabled. There is no distinction or separate category; the drawing guarantees coming and final resurrection.