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.
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.