The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Brightfame52 said:

Your focus is on man and not the saving Death of Christ.

Click to expand...

You’re avoiding the question.

Brightfame52 said:

It's a rabbit trail. This is about the saving death of Christ, which obviously you are avoiding . Read the op again

Click to expand...

It's only a rabbit trail for those who don't wish to facde the truth. Sin/deeds of the flesh will keep one from heaven, and yet believers sin. There is sin, according to John, that leads to death, that means we don't even know God. The church faced and addressed this truth centuries ago. You, apparently, have not.

Brightfame52 said:

Post 84 do you understand it?

Click to expand...

Brightfame52 said:

When Christ died, it was to save His People from their sins Matt 1:21, hence inclusive in His Death was all that was necessary to secure the intended saving effects of His death. Nothing was left up to man to do in order for His Saving Death would be fruitful, He is Saviour alone ! Rom 8:32

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 8

Click to expand...

Christ did more than accomplish forgiveness of sin for us, but also the power, the grace, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which to overcome sin so that we may have life (in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, IOW-Rom 8:4). So now we are debtors, with obligation, expected to respond throughout our lives. Without His paying the price this would be impossible.

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

God covets our participation, and our increasing willingness, in fact.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

But this doesn't quite work. Why does He need to have patience with them, if the means is strictly His regenerating them?

Dikaioumenoi said:

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?

Click to expand...

It's simple: He gives enough grace for them to come, and yet doesn't make that grace irresistible; He wants them to consent. So they're drawn, and may come, or they can resist the draw, or consent but turn back and leave later. In fact, in order for those in Heb 11:6 to taste of the heavenly gift, they must be drawn to, attracted by, that gift first.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

"No one can come to me unless the Father draws him" does not exclude those who refuse to come even though drawn.

And, BTW, Plato used ἑλκούσης to describe common attractions to worldly pleasures and modern Greek uses it similiarly (έλκω).

fhansen said:

But this doesn't quite work. Why does He need to have patience with them, if the means is strictly His regenerating them?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Who says "the means is strictly His regenerating them"?

fhansen said:

It's simple: He gives enough grace for them to come, and yet doesn't make that grace irresistible

Click to expand...

Are you intentionally being obstinate? You're not even listening to what it is I'm saying. Look at the verse:

"No one can come to me..."

That is a statement of inability, not unwillingness. How does one obtain the ability to come to Christ? The verse continues:

"...unless the Father... draws him."

So who is able to come to Christ? Those drawn, and only those drawn. If you are not drawn, you cannot come. You said, "He gives enough grace for them to come." Yes, that's called drawing:

"No one can come to me... unless the Father draws him."

If not A, then not B. If not drawn, then not able. The drawing is the grace of God that enables sinners to come to Him. So, is it possible for someone to come to Christ if the Father does not succeed in that enabling activity?

fhansen said:

"No one can come to me unless the Father draws him" does not exclude those who refuse to come even though drawn.

Click to expand...

What does the rest of the verse say?

fhansen said:

And, BTW, Plato used ἑλκούσης to describe common attractions to worldly pleasures and modern Greek uses it similiarly (έλκω).

Click to expand...

I've read a good deal of Plato. What citation are you referring to?

I'm asking out of curiosity; the point isn't a relevant one. Plato is Classical, Modern is Modern. Neither is Koine. The language has changed significantly between those three periods. Words in Classical Greek frequently carry specialized meanings limited to philosophical contexts, and Modern Greek is even further removed, with vast lexical and semantic drift. Appealing to Modern Greek usage is like using Modern English to define the meaning of words in Shakespearean English. It's anachronistic.

And in all of this you still fail to recognize that this whole line of argument -- trying to attach a softer meaning to ἑλκύω -- is undermining your position, not helping it.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What are you talking about? Who says "the means is strictly His regenerating them"?

Click to expand...

Well, not according to me but I believe your theology maintains that a person is regenerated first? And then believes, repents, etc. as a result?

Dikaioumenoi said:

Are you intentionally being obstinate? You're not even listening to what it is I'm saying. Look at the verse:

"No one can come to me..."

That is a statement of inability, not unwillingness. How does one obtain the ability to come to Christ? The verse continues:

"...unless the Father... draws him."

So who is able to come to Christ? Those drawn, and only those drawn. If you are not drawn, you cannot come. You said, "He gives enough grace for them to come." Yes, that's called drawing:

"No one can come to me... unless the Father draws him."

If not A, then not B. If not drawn, then not able. The drawing is the grace of God that enables sinners to come to Him. So, is it possible for someone to come to Christ if the Father does not succeed in that enabling activity?

Click to expand...

Why? Methinks you're the one being obstinate here. Enabling someoone to do something simply doesn't mean they'll do it! So of course the Father can enable without succeeding. I've worked with drug addicts and they can be given all the reason and means to change, but that doesn't mean they will. They have to want it, as we must with God once we see the treasure He offers, and then continue wanting it, continuing to value that treasure, to value Him and our relationship with Him.

Dikaioumenoi said:

What does the rest of the verse say?

Click to expand...

The group He's speaking of: those who came, and in light of the fuller counsel of Scripture, remained and persevered to the end in doing good, being holy, producing good fruit etc, He will raise up.

Dikaioumenoi said:

I'm asking out of curiosity; the point isn't a relevant one. Plato is Classical, Modern is Modern. Neither is Koine. The language has changed significantly between those three periods. Words in Classical Greek frequently carry specialized meanings limited to philosophical contexts, and Modern Greek is even further removed, with vast lexical and semantic drift. Appealing to Modern Greek usage is like using Modern English to define the meaning of words in Shakespearean English. It's anachronistic.

Click to expand...

But it's a case of a certain possible meaning from the two time periods I referred to, that sandwich the period in question, with both at least offering or establishing a reasonable pattern, while you've maintained that the word must adhere to a certain meaning only, without offering anything other than opinion as far as I know. Anyway, from my understanding, being no expert in either Greek or Plato, he said this in line 238 of Phaedrus as one instance of his use of the word:
"Now when opinion, guided by reason, leads and prevails, this is called temperance; but when desire, leading unreasonably and dragging (ἑλκούσης) us toward pleasures and having become the master within us, is given the name hubris (wantonness/arrogance)."

Dikaioumenoi said:

And in all of this you still fail to recognize that this whole line of argument -- trying to attach a softer meaning to ἑλκύω -- is undermining your position, not helping it.

Click to expand...

Ok, except that I don't see how God, making it possible to come without making it inescapable, such that there's no excuse for a person to fail to come other than their own prideful willfull stubborness, and as if justice, itself, demands that they do come, that they accept the light after all He's shown and done for them, should be a problem with all of Scripture in general or specifically here as the word is used in the sense of "appeal", "coax", "persuade". Maybe you can point me to your post where you explained it and I'll reconsider.