The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

And we'll find out for certain who He died for in the next life.

Brightfame52 said:

For all those Christ died His death exclusively for them acquired:

Deliverance from the wrath to come 1 Thess 1:10

10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

For He was raised for our Justification Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

So again, those for whom offences He was delivered for, they the same consequently were delivered from the wrath to come!

Click to expand...

The logical problem with Jesus only dying for the elect is you need to know you are of the elect before you can trust in Christ. IOW if you don't know Jesus died for you, how can you then trust in him? But Calvinism solves this illogically, saying if you do trust in Christ, he died for you, but that is no solution to the problem. It all seems theologically upside down.

Brightfame52 said:

This post is about the saving effects of the death of Christ.

Click to expand...

If that were true, everyone would be saved.

Brightfame52 said:

For all those Christ died His death exclusively for them acquired:

Deliverance from the wrath to come 1 Thess 1:10

10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

For He was raised for our Justification Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

So again, those for whom offences He was delivered for, they the same consequently were delivered from the wrath to come!

Click to expand...

Most of what you have quoted is true of believers, but not true concerning all Jesus atoned for, since he atoned for everyone, not just believers.

Brightfame52 said:

Doesn't the drawing activates the coming unto Christ as here Jn 6 44

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The word come erchomai: is active

1. to come
   1. of persons
      1. to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
      2. to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
2. metaph.
   1. to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
   2. be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto
3. to go, to follow one

to commit oneself to the instruction of Jesus and enter into fellowship with him,

So I believe the drawing results into discipleship and fellowship with Christ.

Click to expand...

ἐλθεῖν is a complementary infinitive. Yes, it's active, but as a complementary infinitive it "completes" the idea of the main verb, δύναται. Thus, what the drawing specifically responds to is οὐδεὶς δύναται, "no one is able." It is that lack of ability to do something that the Father's drawing specifically addresses. "Come" is what one lacks the ability to do, but the central idea is ability, not the fact of coming itself.

I do agree with you when you say "the drawing results in discipleship and fellowship with Christ," but I do not think you can conclude that from "no one can come to me unless drawn." All that "no one can come to me unless drawn" tells us is that the drawing is necessary in order for coming to occur, not sufficient to produce coming. What does entail sufficiency, however, is the final clause, "and I will raise him up on the last day." It is that statement that tells us the one drawn/enabled = the one who actually comes and is raised.

zoidar said:

I can neither verify nor refute your grammatical and theological claims, but I will say this: John 6:45 identifies those who are drawn as listening and learning, describing those who come as God-taught. The text does not explain why they listen and learn, why they are God-taught. It simply presents these as qualities of those whom God draws.

Click to expand...

The reason why they are God-taught is not left unexplained. It is embedded in the adjective itself. Again, the expression διδακτοὶ θεοῦ does not depict a teaching merely offered, capable of being accepted or refused. For that, we would expect something like οἱ διδασκόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ("those being taught by God"), which would simply denote the ongoing activity of instruction directed toward them, without specifying its outcome.

But διδακτοὶ θεοῦ is a predicate adjective describing persons as the result of a completed divine action. It presents them as those who have already received the effect of God's instruction. The form therefore presupposes divine initiative and successful divine agency. This is not a teaching that may or may not take root; it is a teaching that achieves its intended effect.

So there's the reason: These individuals are taught because God determined that they should be. The reason they "hear and learn" is not an open question supplied from outside the text. The grammar itself provides it. They hear and learn because God has made them such. He has rendered them "God-taught."

fhansen said:

We simply don’t know that all who are drawn will come; we know that all who are drawn and come will be raised up.

Click to expand...

You still have yet to address my refutation of this position. Who does the "him" refer to in the clause, "and I will raise him up on the last day"? There's no disputing that it refers to those who actually come to Jesus. But who comes to Jesus? Grammatically, what is John saying here?

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

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The αὐτόν who is raised on the last day is the same αὐτόν who is drawn. Grammatically, the pronoun in ἀναστήσω αὐτόν must refer back to the nearest suitable antecedent, which is the οὐδεὶς δύναται… ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν clause. In other words, the "him" who is raised is the "him" who is drawn. The text itself makes no grammatical space for subdividing the referent into two groups -- those enabled to come, versus those who actually do.

Your reading requires precisely that distinction -- that some of the "him" drawn are not the "him" raised. But the syntax does not supply a second referent for αὐτόν to latch onto. You must therefore import an unspoken category. In other words, you're making an interpretive move that presupposes the very point you want to prove. Meanwhile, the surrounding context (vv. 37, 39, 65) consistently grounds coming in sovereign initiative, which strongly argues against any basis for that presupposition.

Again, consider the contrapositive.

Let p = "one can come to me"
Let q = "the Father draws him"
Let r = "I will raise him up"

The verse, as stated, reads: "not p if not q, and r," which, stated formally in symbolic logic, is (-q --> -p) ^ r

The contrapositive of this is (p --> q) ^ r, which reads:

"If one can come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."

Who does Christ promise to raise? The one drawn. Who is the one drawn? The one enabled to come.

"If Sam is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn Sam, and I will raise Sam up."

This is a promise of final salvation based on the Father's sovereign act in drawing/enabling individuals. The natural implication of this is that this act of enablement leads effectually to coming to Christ. It is a transformation of the heart. This comports with John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me."

Dikaioumenoi said:

The reason why they are God-taught is not left unexplained. It is embedded in the adjective itself. Again, the expression διδακτοὶ θεοῦ does not depict a teaching merely offered, capable of being accepted or refused. For that, we would expect something like οἱ διδασκόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ("those being taught by God"), which would simply denote the ongoing activity of instruction directed toward them, without specifying its outcome.

But διδακτοὶ θεοῦ is a predicate adjective describing persons as the result of a completed divine action. It presents them as those who have already received the effect of God's instruction. The form therefore presupposes divine initiative and successful divine agency. This is not a teaching that may or may not take root; it is a teaching that achieves its intended effect.

So there's the reason: These individuals are taught because God determined that they should be. The reason they "hear and learn" is not an open question supplied from outside the text. The grammar itself provides it. They hear and learn because God has made them such. He has rendered them "God-taught."

Click to expand...

"Short answer: Dikai over-states what the Greek grammar can prove.
The adjective διδακτοὶ θεοῦ can fit a monergistic reading, but it does not grammatically require it. It is consistent with multiple theological interpretations, and standard Greek grammar does not force the conclusion that God's teaching is automatically effectual.

Dikai asserts:

1. The adjective requires effectual, irresistible divine instruction.

2. It presupposes divine initiative that accomplishes its intended result.

3. Therefore the reason they hear/learn is because God unilaterally made them such.

These conclusions are not demanded by the grammar. They are theologically deduced, not linguistically encoded.

ChatGPT

zoidar said:

"Short answer: Dikai over-states what the Greek grammar can prove.
The adjective διδακτοὶ θεοῦ can fit a monergistic reading, but it does not grammatically require it. It is consistent with multiple theological interpretations, and standard Greek grammar does not force the conclusion that God's teaching is automatically effectual.

Dikai asserts:

1. The adjective requires effectual, irresistible divine instruction.

2. It presupposes divine initiative that accomplishes its intended result.

3. Therefore the reason they hear/learn is because God unilaterally made them such.

These conclusions are not demanded by the grammar. They are theologically deduced, not linguistically encoded.

ChatGPT

Click to expand...

Respectfully, if all you are doing is copying my words into ChatGPT and pasting the output, I will not continue to engage. That approach is disrespectful. I am taking the time to offer careful, reasoned responses, and you are outsourcing the work to an AI and presenting it as a substantive objection. That is not argumentation; it is merely being argumentative. If you lack the Greek to respond yourself, either defer to someone who does or offer a different, thoughtful objection. Don't copy-paste something just to have something to say.

Past examples in this and other of our discussions have shown that ChatGPT outputs are only partially accurate, especially when it isn't given the full context. I've also shown that you often don't understand what you're even sharing. Once, for example, you pasted a response agreeing with a point I made, and missed it entirely, thinking ChatGPT was objecting to what I said. I will treat further ChatGPT copy-paste jobs as concessions. I will not read them.

What your latest copy-paste job also shows is you are missing the substance of my argument (which, again, invites the question, what prompt did you give ChatGPT?). I have never claimed that διδακτοὶ θεοῦ, as a grammatical form, by itself necessitates monergism. Adjectives do not encode causal mechanics. My point is that, in John 6:44-45, the syntax and discourse logic, especially in light of the Isaiah citation, demonstrates that διδακτοὶ θεοῦ describes the result of God's sovereign action, not the mere offering of instruction. It is a predicate adjective of state, reflecting a completed, effectual divine act.

The question is not what the adjective can mean in isolation, but what it denotes in context. The text presents a causal and logical sequence: those who are drawn (ἑλκύσῃ) are "God-taught" (διδακτοὶ θεοῦ) and thereby possess the capacity to come. This is not contingent or optional; the state described is the effect of God's action, enabling coming to Christ.

Moreover, the aorist participles ἀκούσας … καὶ μαθών ("who has heard and learned") indicate antecedent action. They describe those who come as already having heard and learned form the Father, precisely what "being God-taught" entails.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Respectfully, if all you are doing is copying my words into ChatGPT and pasting the output, I will not continue to engage. That approach is disrespectful. I am taking the time to offer careful, reasoned responses, and you are outsourcing the work to an AI and presenting it as a substantive objection. That is not argumentation; it is merely being argumentative. If you lack the Greek to respond yourself, either defer to someone who does or offer a different, thoughtful objection. Don't copy-paste something just to have something to say.

Past examples in this and other of our discussions have shown that ChatGPT outputs are only partially accurate, especially when it isn't given the full context. I've also shown that you often don't understand what you're even sharing. Once, for example, you pasted a response agreeing with a point I made, and missed it entirely, thinking ChatGPT was objecting to what I said. I will treat further ChatGPT copy-paste jobs as concessions. I will not read them.

What your latest copy-paste job also shows is you are missing the substance of my argument (which, again, invites the question, what prompt did you give ChatGPT?). I have never claimed that διδακτοὶ θεοῦ, as a grammatical form, by itself necessitates monergism. Adjectives do not encode causal mechanics. My point is that, in John 6:44-45, the syntax and discourse logic, especially in light of the Isaiah citation, demonstrates that διδακτοὶ θεοῦ describes the result of God's sovereign action, not the mere offering of instruction. It is a predicate adjective of state, reflecting a completed, effectual divine act.

The question is not what the adjective can mean in isolation, but what it denotes in context. The text presents a causal and logical sequence: those who are drawn (ἑλκύσῃ) are "God-taught" (διδακτοὶ θεοῦ) and thereby possess the capacity to come. This is not contingent or optional; the state described is the effect of God's action, enabling coming to Christ.

Moreover, the aorist participles ἀκούσας … καὶ μαθών ("who has heard and learned") indicate antecedent action. They describe those who come as already having heard and learned form the Father, precisely what "being God-taught" entails.

Click to expand...

I copied my whole previous post and your whole previous post and asked the ChatGPT if you were right.

Now it does not sound like you argue against my previous statement: "The text does not explain why they listen and learn, why they are God-taught. It simply presents these as qualities of those whom God draws."

Dikaioumenoi said:

... The grammar itself provides it. They hear and learn because God has made them such. He has rendered them "God-taught."

Click to expand...

Ok, but that is still not answering why He rendered them "God taught". For an example, was it because they were humble?

Dikaioumenoi said:

You still have yet to address my refutation of this position. Who does the "him" refer to in the clause, "and I will raise him up on the last day"? There's no disputing that it refers to those who actually come to Jesus. But who comes to Jesus? Grammatically, what is John saying here?

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

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The αὐτόν who is raised on the last day is the same αὐτόν who is drawn. Grammatically, the pronoun in ἀναστήσω αὐτόν must refer back to the nearest suitable antecedent, which is the οὐδεὶς δύναται… ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν clause. In other words, the "him" who is raised is the "him" who is drawn. The text itself makes no grammatical space for subdividing the referent into two groups -- those enabled to come, versus those who actually do.

Your reading requires precisely that distinction -- that some of the "him" drawn are not the "him" raised. But the syntax does not supply a second referent for αὐτόν to latch onto. You must therefore import an unspoken category. In other words, you're making an interpretive move that presupposes the very point you want to prove. Meanwhile, the surrounding context (vv. 37, 39, 65) consistently grounds coming in sovereign initiative, which strongly argues against any basis for that presupposition.

Again, consider the contrapositive.

Let p = "one can come to me"
Let q = "the Father draws him"
Let r = "I will raise him up"

The verse, as stated, reads: "not p if not q, and r," which, stated formally in symbolic logic, is (-q --> -p) ^ r

The contrapositive of this is (p --> q) ^ r, which reads:

"If one can come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up."

Who does Christ promise to raise? The one drawn. Who is the one drawn? The one enabled to come.

"If Sam is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn Sam, and I will raise Sam up."

This is a promise of final salvation based on the Father's sovereign act in drawing/enabling individuals. The natural implication of this is that this act of enablement leads effectually to coming to Christ. It is a transformation of the heart. This comports with John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me."

Click to expand...

You're trying to get way to much distance out of a single verse which was only meant to serve as a concise summary of the Way, of how one is saved. One must come, and no one can come unless enabled. Salvation is directly related to one's nearness to God-union with Him-that's why Jesus came, to reconcile and restore broken relationship between man and God.

Sam was enabled to come. Sam came. God will raise him up.

Nothing conflicts there with the fact that Sam must meanwhile remain in Him, Sam must persevere, Sam must overcome sin, Sam must make effort to be holy-or else Sam won't be one of those who are raised simply because he once responded and came. And that's all consistent with Scripture, early church teachings, and the ECFs.