The Saving results of the Death of Christ !

[Brightfame52]

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."

I believe conversion is the result in both. You did a good job by the grace of the Lord in your details.

 

[fhansen]

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."

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.

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

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

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).

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.

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

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.

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.

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

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.

Purely speculative.

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.

 

[fhansen]

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.

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

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.

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.

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);

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

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

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."

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.

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."

 

[Dikaioumenoi]

Again, this is just speculative.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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."

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.