The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

Brightfame52 said:

God's focus is on Christ

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

zoidar said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

zoidar said:

You said in your post #64:

Click to expand...

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.

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Dikaioumenoi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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