- Dec 14, 2020
- 5,273
- 583
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I believe conversion is the result in both. You did a good job by the grace of the Lord in your details.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I believe conversion is the result in both. You did a good job by the grace of the Lord in your details.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.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."
No one argues this point, or shouldn’t, at least, as this is classic Christianity.mankind as a whole is naturally incapable of coming to Christ, apart from the Father's drawing.
Purely speculative.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).
Can you provide an example where the sense is "attract" or "appeal" without causative movement?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.
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.No one argues this point, or shouldn’t, at least, as this is classic Christianity.
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.Purely speculative.
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.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.
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.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.
No, they're the same: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);
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."Peter's proverb concludes that the dog "returns to its vomit," showing the unchanged nature of the animal.
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: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.
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.Again, this is just speculative.
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.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 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."When they did, they were unable to haul (ἑλκύσαι) the net in because of the large number of fish." John 21:6
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: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.
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.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
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.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."
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.Causation means to effect change, whether it succeeds in the effort or not.
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.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 whole thing is an unnecessary use of lots of words to create a rabbit trail into la-la land. Of course, the English doesn’t determine the Greek but both, for example, happen to take a simple word that first involves moving objects while also using it metaphorically to mean impelling internal movement of a person. And this use is a logical extension of the word’s original meaning. The real difference in this thread is in whether or not that effort is resistible.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.
No, the action fails because there was resistance! Otherwise, it would be like saying an irresistible force was, um, resistible. They caused the net to move and yet the net didn’t move. They moved the net with decisive power and yet the net didn’t move. Indecisive decisiveness? Etc.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.
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.
It’s simple, whoever perseveres to the end in doing God’s will, will be saved. And no one can predict their own perseverance BTW. And they may also be deceived about God’s will to begin with.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.
I used "means" there in the sense of "intends". IOW, causation, simply, does not guarantee movement or effect, any more than attempting ἑλκύσαι (to haul in) their net guaranteed that it’d make it into the boat.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.
Everyone is appealed to. Some will respond and some will not. Those who do are reborn: forgiven and given a new heart and spirit. Some will turn out to be poor soil and some good. That's what we know. God wants none to perish (2 Pet 2:9). But yes, I know, “none” doesn’t really mean “none”- and God doesn’t really love the whole world-nor did Jesus die for it.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.
No, it's just what He chooses to do, for our sake. To put it another way, love is a human choice even as it's a gift of grace to begin with, the ultimate choice for goodness over evil that comes to the extent that we choose and draw near to Him. That is our justice/righteousness and our salvation. If you don't yet understand that then you're probalby still just locked into word and concepts. You're faith is real, but needs further enlightenment.Suggesting God "stops short" to avoid producing "automatons" introduces a philosophical, not biblical, constraint on divine power.
Hmm, funny, the passage sure presents it as optional. In fact, the conditional is always optional-that’s the point.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.
No, there’s no distinction made there about those who share in Christ not being able to fall away from Christ.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?