Why do Arminians...

[Skala]

ἕλκω / helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

I Googled it:

helkō, does NOT convey drag.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

ἕλκω / helkō, does NOT convey drag. This is a typical RT rendering, and is contextually wrong.
Trench writes:

These words differ, and the difference between them is not theologically unimportant. We best represent this difference in English, when we render σύρειν, ‘to drag,’ ἑλκύειν, ‘to draw.’ In σύρειν, as in our ‘drag,’ there lies always the notion of force, as when Plutarch (De Lib. Ed. 8) speaks of the headlong course of a river, πάντα αύρων καὶ πάντα παραφέρων: and it will follow, that where persons, and not merely things, are in question, σύρειν will involve the notion of violence (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6; cf. κατασύρειν, Luke 12:58). But in ἑλκύειν this notion of force or violence does not of necessity lie. It may be there (Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jam. 2:6; cf. Homer, Il. xi. 258; xxiv. 52, 417; Aristophanes, Equit. 710; Euripides, Troad. 70: Αἰὰς εἷλκε Κασάνδραν βίᾳ but not of necessity (thus Plato, Rep. 6:494 e: ἐὰν ἕλκηται πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν: cf. vii. 538 d), any more than in our ‘draw,’ which we use of a mental and moral attraction, or in the Latin ‘traho’ (‘trahit sua quemque voluptas’).
Only by keeping in mind the difference which thus exists between these, can we vindicate from erroneous interpretation two doctrinally important passages in the Gospel of St. John. The first is 12:32: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men [πάντας ἑλκύσω] unto Me.” But how does a crucified, and thus an exalted, Saviour draw all men unto Him? Not by force, for the will is incapable of force, but by the divine attractions of his love. Again (6:44): “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτό&#957. Now as many as feel bound to deny any such ‘gratia irresistibilis’ as turns man into a machine, and by which, willing or unwilling, he is dragged to God, must at once allow, must indeed assert, that this ἑλκύσῃ can mean no more than the potent allurements, the allective force of love, the attracting of men by the Father to the Son; compare Jer. 31:3, “With loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (εἵλκυσά σ&#949, and Cant. 1:3, 4. Did we find αύρειν on either of these occasions (not that this would be possible), the assertors of a ‘gratia irresistibilis’1 might then urge the declarations of our Lord as leaving no room for any other meaning but theirs; but not as they now stand.
In agreement with all this, in ἑλκύειν is predominantly the sense of a drawing to a certain point, in σύρειν merely of dragging after one; thus Lucian (De Merc. Cond. 3), likening a man to a fish already hooked and dragged through the water, describes him as συρόμενον καὶ πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἀγόμενον. Not seldom there will lie in αύρειν the notion of this dragging being upon the ground, inasmuch as that will trail upon the ground (cf. σύρμα, σύρδην, and Isai. 3:16), which is forcibly dragged along with no will of its own; a dead body, for example (Philo, In Flac. 21). We may compare John 21:6, 11 with ver. 8 of the same chapter, in confirmation of what has just been affirmed. At ver. 6 and 11 ἑλκύειν is used; for there a drawing of the net to a certain point is intended; by the disciples to themselves in the ship, by Peter to himself upon the shore. But at ver. 8 ἑλκύειν gives place to σύρειν: for nothing is there intended but the dragging of the net, which had been fastened to the ship, after it through the water. Our Version has maintained the distinction; so too the German of De Wette, by aid of ‘ziehen’ (==ἑλκύει&#957 and ‘nachschleppen’ (==σύρειν but neither the Vulgate, nor Beza, both employing ‘traho’ throughout.
​

You miss the point. It doesn't matter what you translate it as, draw is fine. The entire concept of ἕλκω should be seen from its use as a verb, always being performed by one particular active party onto one particular passive party, whether that be an inanimate object (drawing a sword, etc.) or person (as in John 6:44). It is irrelevant whether the object has a will (such as a person, again John 6:44). The drawing of the Father, contextually, always results in the raising to life on the last day. The αὐτόν (him) of the drawing is most necessarily the same αὐτόν (him) of the raising, and that is fact by the most basic exegetical principles, most notably that the copulative κἀγὼ requires it. There is a reason why this text has been historically referred to by the reformers for its teaching of irresistible grace and monergistic regeneration; you can try and dull the meaning of ἕλκω all you want, it does nothing to the contextual and [resultant] grammatical conclusions that you must face due to an honest exegesis.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're missing the fact that the word "election" has more than one definition. Definition #1 was "electing into office". But definition #3 which I bolded says "The act of electing".

Ah, correct. Which is my point. All believers are elected to special privilege and service. Not just "picked" for it. That's the purpose of election regarding believers.

If you look at what it means to "elect" something (the dictionary provided a clickable link for convenience), it brings you to the word "elect" which means to "select or choose".

But surely to elect something or someone isn't exactly the same as picking them or it out of a lineup.

You lost this argument friend. You're no longer arguing against me, but the dictionary.

I've never denied that an election involves choice. Ever. But it seems that everyone else denies that there are semantic differences between election and choice.

You asked "Are all choices an election?"

Since one of the definitions of "election" is "the act of electing", that means a synonymous question would be:

"Are all choices an act of electing?"

Instead, what I read here is just another act of dodging my straight forward question. Everyone knows that very few choices are an election, but seems no one is brave enough or honest enough to admit it.

So, FG2, are all choices the act of choosing?

Yes or no?

How ridiculous. Of course. And all elections are an election. Duh.

Why won't you answer my simple question: are all choices an election?

Please don't equivocate or dodge this time.

 

[Skala]

Why won't you answer my simple question: are all choices an election?

That's the same as asking "Are all choices the act of choosing" because one of the definitions (the definition that pertains to this discussion) of election is "the act of electing", and the definition of "electing" is "to choose".

To elect someone is to choose someone. To choose someone is to elect someone.
Because the definition of elect is "choose". It's synonymous.

End of discussion.

Next word we can take to the dictionary?

Never in my life did I think it was possible for a human being to have a debate with an inanimate object, namely the dictionary.

 

[FreeGrace2]

(staff edit)

You seem to think that you do, but won't say. It's like you're looking for a gotcha moment.

I've been saying it all along. Election per Scripture is more than just a choice of persons. It's an election to special privilege and service.

That's what Jesus Christ was elected to.
That's what national Israel was elected to.
That's what some angels were elected to.
That's what NT believers are elected to.
That's what Paul was elected to: preach to Gentiles.
That's what the initial 12 disciples were elected to, including Judas.

These choices were far more than just a simple choice.

Most choices do not involve being selected for special privilege and service.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Scripture says we are justified by faith. You'll find that in the didactic parts. So a Calvinist can say that one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved and still be consistent. So you haven't proven that Paul was a synergist.

OK, refresh my memory as to what your definnition of synergism, please.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The real question shouldn't be about English, but about the etymological scope and context of the Greek terms which mean something synonymous with choose/elect. The three which seem most relevant are ἐκλεκτός, ἐκλογή and ἐκλέγομαι, which all belong to the same family sharing the root of ἐκ coupled with λέγω. ἐκ, being a preposition for out of or from, in addition to λέγω, a verb for will, desire, purpose, etc. makes it quite clear that the idea of each word and its variants carry the main idea of from the will, with ἐκλεκτός functioning as adjectival (but carrying a verbal form or implying an action, c.f Col 3:12, God's chosen ones), ἐκλογή functioning as a noun (c.f. Rom 11:7, the elect), and ἐκλέγομαι functioning as a verb (c.f. Luke 10:42, Mary has chosen).

I'm assuming your question would actually be better stated "should we translate these words the same every time, or is there a time when one [English] word should be used rather than another one?" Really the main difficulty here is that we have a family of words in greek that differ based on their function, NOT their meaning, and yet in English we have multiple words that have a slightly different meaning/scope based on culture/context. For example, the term elect seems to be a formal variant of the idea behind the word choice, since it is often used regarding political offices and the choosing of a corporate body. It can also carry the concept of having weighed many different options, having surveyed all of the possible choices, and thus electing to go with a particular action. However I don't believe one can argue that the foundational idea of both elect and choice reflect anything but an action of the will, whether that be via a single individual or corporate entity. Even though using them synonymously may cause the speaker/reader to sound awkwardly less or more formal at times, the concepts driving each word are similar and thus can be exchanged.

Thanks. I appreciate your information. Would you please respond to these questions.

1. All elections involve a choice. Yes or no.
2. All choices involve an election. Yes or no.

Seems no one else is willing to answer them.

Thanks.

 

[Skala]

Thanks. I appreciate your information. Would you please respond to these questions.

1. All elections involve a choice. Yes or no.
2. All choices involve an election. Yes or no.

Yes.

To elect is to choose.
From dictionary.com:

#4 is interesting.


How many times are you going to ask if all choices involve choosing?!?!?!?!

 

[FreeGrace2]

How about instead of drag, we understand it as drawing a sword, or drawing water from a well with a bucket?

How about instead looking at what a dictionary says about "draw"?

I. Indicating traction by use of physical force (drag)
II. Indicating attraction; a)to attract, charm, enticement b)inhale c)bring forth
III. Indicating extraction by pulling out, removing, or take out

There are clearly verses in the NT where the translated word "draw" means II.

 

[Skala]

How about instead looking at what a dictionary says about "draw"?

I. Indicating traction by use of physical force (drag)
II. Indicating attraction; a)to attract, charm, enticement b)inhale c)bring forth
III. Indicating extraction by pulling out, removing, or take out

There are clearly verses in the NT where the translated word "draw" means II.

It doesn't matter how many times "draw" appears in English. What matters in this debate his how many times helkuo appears, and what it means.

It appears 8 times, none of which mean to "attract" or "Charm" or "woo" or "persuade"

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked this:
Why won't you answer my simple question: are all choices an election?

That's the same as asking "Are all choices the act of choosing" because one of the definitions (the definition that pertains to this discussion) of election is "the act of electing", and the definition of "electing" is "to choose".

What a dodge! I get it. You'd prefer not to answer the question.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes.

How many times are you going to ask if all choices involve choosing?!?!?!?!

Well, FINALLY an answer!! Thanks. But with discernment, one knows the difference between simply choosing something or someone, with electing someone.

The ISBE provides a good definition of the Biblical meaning of election, which fits all 6 categories of election.

To select for special service and privilege.

Here are the categories:
Jesus Christ
national Israel
angels
NT believers
12 initial disciples, including Judas
Paul and his ministry to Gentiles

Please note that none of these categories were elected TO salvation. Zero.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It doesn't matter how many times "draw" appears in English. What matters in this debate his how many times helkuo appears, and what it means.

It appears 8 times, none of which mean to "attract" or "Charm" or "woo" or "persuade"

Your statement appears here as only an opinion, with nothing to back it up.

In the LXX, helkuo is used here:

Jeremiah 31:3
The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying,
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore I have drawn (helkuo) you with lovingkindness.

Still want to claim that it always means a forceful drag? How does that work? How does one drag someone else with lovingkindness?

This verse indicates that helkuo is equivalent to the English "draw" as indicating attraction. No force is involved.

 

[Skala]

Your statement appears here as only an opinion, with nothing to back it up.

In the LXX, helkuo is used here:

Jeremiah 31:3
The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying,
“I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore I have drawn (helkuo) you with lovingkindness.

Still want to claim that it always means a forceful drag? How does that work? How does one drag someone else with lovingkindness?

This verse indicates that helkuo is equivalent to the English "draw" as indicating attraction. No force is involved.

Lol you're hilarious bro. Helkuo does not appear in Jeremiah, namely because helkuo is a Greek word and Jeremiah, along the rest of the OT, is in Hebrew! Now you're talking about a translation of a translation.



As for your question though, why do you think it is impossible of God to draw someone lovingly? He brings us to Himself, because he loves us.

Doesn't seem that hard of a concept.

When you swoop your child off the ground before they run into the street, have you done so lovingly?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Lol you're hilarious bro. Helkuo does not appear in Jeremiah, namely because helkuo is a Greek word and Jeremiah, along the rest of the OT, is in Hebrew!

Well, the laugh is not on me, bro.

This is what I said;
"In the LXX, helkuo is used here:"

The "LXX" is the designation of the Septuagint. If that isn't a familiar word, it means the OT Hebrew translated into the Greek several hundred years before Christ.

As for your question though, why do you think it is impossible of God to draw someone lovingly? He brings us to Himself, because he loves us.

He does draw lovingly. Just not with force, or against one's will. Or, prove the opposite from Scripture.

When you swoop your child off the ground before they run into the street, have you done so lovingly?

In a real emergency, one does not have time to be gentle and not forceful. So your example fails. And Jer 31:3 isn't about being snatched off a busy street either.

 

[Skala]

Well, the laugh is not on me, bro.

This is what I said;
"In the LXX, helkuo is used here:"

The "LXX" is the designation of the Septuagint. If that isn't a familiar word, it means the OT Hebrew translated into the Greek several hundred years before Christ.

Yea, I said it was a translation of a translation...guess you missed it.

He does draw lovingly. Just not with force, or against one's will. Or, prove the opposite from Scripture.

Calvinists don't believe he draws with "force" or "against one's will". Please learn what Calvinists believe about conversion.

In a real emergency, one does not have time to be gentle and not forceful. So your example fails.

It doesn't fail because it demonstrates you can do something forcibly yet lovingly.

 

[Hammster]

ἕλκω / helkō, does NOT convey drag. This is a typical RT rendering, and is contextually wrong.
Trench writes:

These words differ, and the difference between them is not theologically unimportant. We best represent this difference in English, when we render σύρειν, ‘to drag,’ ἑλκύειν, ‘to draw.’ In σύρειν, as in our ‘drag,’ there lies always the notion of force, as when Plutarch (De Lib. Ed. 8) speaks of the headlong course of a river, πάντα αύρων καὶ πάντα παραφέρων: and it will follow, that where persons, and not merely things, are in question, σύρειν will involve the notion of violence (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6; cf. κατασύρειν, Luke 12:58). But in ἑλκύειν this notion of force or violence does not of necessity lie. It may be there (Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jam. 2:6; cf. Homer, Il. xi. 258; xxiv. 52, 417; Aristophanes, Equit. 710; Euripides, Troad. 70: Αἰὰς εἷλκε Κασάνδραν βίᾳ but not of necessity (thus Plato, Rep. 6:494 e: ἐὰν ἕλκηται πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν: cf. vii. 538 d), any more than in our ‘draw,’ which we use of a mental and moral attraction, or in the Latin ‘traho’ (‘trahit sua quemque voluptas’).
Only by keeping in mind the difference which thus exists between these, can we vindicate from erroneous interpretation two doctrinally important passages in the Gospel of St. John. The first is 12:32: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men [πάντας ἑλκύσω] unto Me.” But how does a crucified, and thus an exalted, Saviour draw all men unto Him? Not by force, for the will is incapable of force, but by the divine attractions of his love. Again (6:44): “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτό&#957. Now as many as feel bound to deny any such ‘gratia irresistibilis’ as turns man into a machine, and by which, willing or unwilling, he is dragged to God, must at once allow, must indeed assert, that this ἑλκύσῃ can mean no more than the potent allurements, the allective force of love, the attracting of men by the Father to the Son; compare Jer. 31:3, “With loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (εἵλκυσά σ&#949, and Cant. 1:3, 4. Did we find αύρειν on either of these occasions (not that this would be possible), the assertors of a ‘gratia irresistibilis’1 might then urge the declarations of our Lord as leaving no room for any other meaning but theirs; but not as they now stand.
In agreement with all this, in ἑλκύειν is predominantly the sense of a drawing to a certain point, in σύρειν merely of dragging after one; thus Lucian (De Merc. Cond. 3), likening a man to a fish already hooked and dragged through the water, describes him as συρόμενον καὶ πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἀγόμενον. Not seldom there will lie in αύρειν the notion of this dragging being upon the ground, inasmuch as that will trail upon the ground (cf. σύρμα, σύρδην, and Isai. 3:16), which is forcibly dragged along with no will of its own; a dead body, for example (Philo, In Flac. 21). We may compare John 21:6, 11 with ver. 8 of the same chapter, in confirmation of what has just been affirmed. At ver. 6 and 11 ἑλκύειν is used; for there a drawing of the net to a certain point is intended; by the disciples to themselves in the ship, by Peter to himself upon the shore. But at ver. 8 ἑλκύειν gives place to σύρειν: for nothing is there intended but the dragging of the net, which had been fastened to the ship, after it through the water. Our Version has maintained the distinction; so too the German of De Wette, by aid of ‘ziehen’ (==ἑλκύει&#957 and ‘nachschleppen’ (==σύρειν but neither the Vulgate, nor Beza, both employing ‘traho’ throughout.
​

I follow the bible, not the teachings of men.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yea, I said it was a translation of a translation...guess you missed it.

If the Greeks way back used the word the way they did, there must be a good reason.

Calvinists don't believe he draws with "force" or "against one's will". Please learn what Calvinists believe about conversion.

Oh, sure. God changes the heart of one who doesn't want his heart changed. And that isn't 'force' to you.

It doesn't fail because it demonstrates you can do something forcibly yet lovingly.

Uh, as in "against one's will", which describes your busy street analogy?

 

[OzSpen]

What I fail to understand is WHY so many try to define the connotation of Greek words when they have been, by CREDENTIALED scholars. I recently argued with a person on another forum who refused to accept the English word DRAW, as in "I will draw all men to myself", or "Unless the Father draws them", and insisted the word should be DRAG. This of course is to support their RT POV of election, and would not listen to reason, despite the fact that ALL English Bibles today, even the KJV, use the word draw.
Proper hermeneutical exegesis and trusting that what is translated is properly done, often seems to suffer in the light of doctrinal bias.

Stan,

On a different topic. You asked me to let you know when my sermon from last Sunday night, 18 May 2014, was uploaded on the church's website. It is now uploaded and is labelled as 'Wisdom (James 1:5-11)'. My title was, 'Is it left up to us or God?'

Remember that it comes with my occa accent. I hope it's not too broad for you. I had to refine it way back for my radio and TV announcing days and newsreading.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Thanks. I appreciate your information. Would you please respond to these questions.

1. All elections involve a choice. Yes or no.
2. All choices involve an election. Yes or no.

Seems no one else is willing to answer them.

Thanks.

First of all, I have no issue with answering objections or trying to explain my points. I am not trying to hide and would like to remain honest in my understanding. Secondly, these aren't questions. These are true/false statements. Third, true/false statements (along with questions) can carry presuppositions, wherein giving any answer at all is to accept the presupposition. As an example, the classic atheist statement is here:

"God can create a rock heavier than He can lift."

Whether I say "true" or whether I say "false", I accept the unbalanced picture of God, which on a presuppositional basis I do not agree with. Hopefully you can identify and understand the example, since I am sure we are in agreement on that. So how this relates to your statements... I don't know how you are defining "election" and how you are defining "choice". To answer is to accept your definition of the terms. That was part of my point in the original post; I am not too interested in all of the intricacies of the English words, I am more interested in the intricacies of the greek -and- how to best explain them in the English. I'm not sure how your statements have an affect on either.