Desk trauma said:

And leaving people who would be better off enslaved as free enfranchised citizens!

Click to expand...

Wholly unchristian.

Thank you all. I last became assured this past Thursday. Because God/Christ does not waver, I think I can trust in that and in Him.

fhansen said:

I honestly don't see the logic in maintaining that the possbilblty of somethiing occuring means that it must occur. Yes, an event cannot occur unless it's possible for it to occur-can't argue there. But if it doesn't occur then something has opposed that occurence, not rendered it impossible. That's what Augustine was getting at.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of what must logically be the case; it's a matter of what John actually wrote. Can you walk through the syntax of this verse and show my error?

John 6:44 consists of three clauses:

1. Apodosis (result clause): οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ("No one is able to come to me")
2. Protasis (conditional clause): ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν ("unless the Father who sent me draws him")
3. Subsequent independent clause (not part of the conditional structure): κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ("and I will raise him up on the last day")

Now observe what the grammar does.

First, the conditional clause tells us only one thing:

The Father's drawing produces ability. (οὐδεὶς δύναται… ἐὰν μὴ… ἑλκύσῃ) Nothing more, nothing less.

If the Father "attempts to draw but fails," then the conditional statement is falsified. The individual would remain unable to come. That is why your claim that drawing "can fail" is not an exegetical argument. It contradicts the very syntax that defines drawing as the enabling act.

And notice: None of this tells us who actually comes. We agree on this! The conditional governs only the movement from inability --> ability. It does not address movement from ability --> actual coming.

This is why all your comments about "possibility doesn't guarantee coming" completely miss the point. That has not once been my argument. The conditional statement itself tells us only that the Father makes coming possible. But the element of the argument you've been neglecting to interact with is that the verse doesn't end there. There is another clause which stands outside the conditional statement. And notice who it references:

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

The αὐτόν… αὐτὸν are the same 3rd person singular pronoun. The αὐτόν in the protasis (ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, "[he] draws him") takes as its antecedent the "one" implied in οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν ("no one is able to come"). No other participant has been introduced. So the αὐτὸν in the final clause (ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν, " will raise him up") must refer back to the same αὐτὸν (i.e., the one drawn), because Greek does not shift third-person singular pronoun referents without introducing a new antecedent. John gives no such introduction.

In other words, while the notion that only some who are drawn are raised may feel logically reasonable in the abstract, John's syntax explicitly forbids it in this sentence. To hold that view, you would have to treat the second αὐτόν as referring to a narrower subset of the first αὐτόν. But that's pure philosophy, not exegesis. In spite of how reasonable you might find that, it is not grammatically defensible from what John actually wrote. Unstressed third-person singular pronouns in Greek do not generate new or narrower referents without an expressed antecedent introducing such a distinction. John introduces no new participant, no restrictive qualifier, and no delimiting phrase. The syntax of the sentence is communicating precisely that the "him" raised is the one defined as having been enabled to come.

So again, the argument is not that "enablement" logically entails "coming," as though the meaning of ἑλκύω itself smuggles in an irresistible conclusion. The point is subtler and entirely textual. John says that the one whom the Father draws -- the one whose inability has been removed -- is the same one Christ will raise. That connection does not arise from the lexical content of ἑλκύω, but from the nature of the Father's act as John presents it: a transformative divine initiative that brings a person from incapacity into the realm of responsive faith (hence, the promise of resurrection).

So the structure is:

• • No one is able to come
  • unless the Father draws him (this produces ability)
  • and I will raise that same him -- that is, the one drawn/enabled

The one who is drawn = the one who is enabled to come = the one who is raised. There is zero grammatical space to claim that the αὐτόν of clause 3 refers to anyone other than the αὐτόν of clause 2. No Greek reader in the first century would have inferred any other referent. Not without a theological presupposition forcing something into the text that isn't there.

This is why your entire argument about the meaning of ἑλκύω is irrelevant to the Calvinist case. The Calvinist argument does not depend on treating ἑλκύω as "cause of salvation." It depends on the fact that ἑλκύω appears inside the conditional, which governs ability, and that the resurrection promise applies to the same individual referenced by the conditional pronoun. So you can define ἑλκύω however you want... it doesn't change the fact that John's syntax defines ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν and ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν as the same individual. The one to whom ἑλκύω refers is promised salvation. The one to whom it does not refer remains unable to come. Those are the two categories.

Servus said:

Yep it was big drama nearly ten years ago, and has nothing to do with the Epstein files.

Click to expand...

I was responding to what you quoted. Did you put it in the wrong thread?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Your go-to response to calling any criticism or skepticism on the people you glorify (you even call Petrie and King 'great men'!) 'ad hominems' shows your lack of desire for engagement with ideas or even the very idea that you could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Notice how he refers to Chris King as Christ King, you can't get greater than that.

boughtwithaprice said:

So your argument is that looks should not cause one to be arrested. The converse is also true, looks should not exempt one from arrest.

Fact is people are breaking the law. The argument that they were not committing a crime at the time of arrest is spurious. Their mere presence in the country without permission is a crime in itself.

If I look like people that are breaking the law, I would be expecting to be detained and questioned. But for the fact that illegal immigration is a rampant problem in this country, due to previous lax enforcement, Latinos would not be subject to questioning.

Click to expand...

What does people “look like” that are breaking the law?

boughtwithaprice said:

Crying citizenship and rights violations does not make crime go away. It condones and encourages it.

I live in San Antonio, TX. It is the most Latino city in the USA and we voted for Donald Trump because we are sick and tired of citizenship becoming a joke and illegals held up as martyrs

Click to expand...

Bexar county voted blue which means that it voted for Harris not Trump,

boughtwithaprice said:

We love Mexican culture in Texas and are decedents of the Original Tejanos who were Mexicans that wanted to breathe free in the Republic of Texas. Yes Anglo brothers helped form the Republic, but Latinos were equal citizens. When it was no longer possible due to threats from Mexico and the failure of Mexico to recognize the Republic of Texas, we joined the United States to preserve freedom. We are proud of our citizenship and will gladly defend it to an officer of HSA in order to have illegals removed that would subvert our freedom

Click to expand...

I have lived in Houston, Texas since 1977. I know the history of Texas.

boughtwithaprice said:

Come to San Antonio and see how many Mexican Americans are crying about ICE. We are not. It’s all left wing propaganda. Citizenship is a privilege. God bless Donald Trump

Click to expand...

Been there many times. Love the river entertainment. And, I’m a centrist and an independent not far left.

boughtwithaprice said:

"Yo prometo lealtad a la bandera de los estados Unidos de America, y a la Republica que representa, una Nacion bajo Dios, entera, con libertad y justicia para todos."

Click to expand...

Y tu sabes Espanol o lo traducistes electronicamente? Yo soy Latino y el primer idioma mio es Espanol. Todavia no me gusta que la migra nos detengan simplemente por la apariencia o porque ablamos Espanol.

I would hope loyal citizens from Mexico would be supportive of ice. They are the ones that are making it harder for the Mexican Americans. They are harming the economy, they are harming the schools, they are harming Healthcare, they are harming housing costs. They are harming the citizenry by being isolated and not blending in. Illegals are a drain rather than a boon. Even to Mexican Americans.

Shane R said:

I occasionally like to indulge in some chili dogs after church.

Click to expand...

It seems like if you had a really good sermon, you ought to reward yourself.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I'm not against this. I'm only wondering why you guys suddenly agree we need a stimulus. The American people are and have been struggling and this administration's economic and trade policies have only made things more expensive. Hence the sudden need to stimulate the economy. Some people in the White House can see the writing on the walls ahead of the midterms.

Can you see it too?

Click to expand...

Bidens economy was a disaster that has pur us in this position. The over all inflation during his term was ridiculous.

And Americans are still feeling it.

That being said I haven't seen Trump or the Republican congress do much to change the needle. I was a wait and see guy on rhe whole tariffs plan. Which I believe has helped in some ways and hurt in others. I'm not convinced its been an over all good thing for the citizens.

Gas prices are down and that is good. But little of anything else is. Overall Inflation is still at 3% which only about .1% higher than Bidens at it his lowest point in 2024. But we need over all inflation to go down. During Trumps first term it hovered around 2%.

Trump and Congress Haven't given us any actual plan to get it lower and the Fed has done nothing to help either. There has been no plan created and passed to help people with Healthcare costs either. So at this point I'd give Teump high marks on his foreign policy. But low marks on the economy end of things.

I'm fine with the stimulus checks if it happens, but I am concerned that Americans will save them rather than spend them. I also like that they are a one time deal instead of an ongoing thing like the Covid checks. Will these help anything? I dont believe they will long term. We need costs to go down. Especially after Bidens inflation brought it so high. And Trump isnt really helping right now.

Servus said:

You can have a spirited debate without being pugnacious.

There's no reason for anyone to make up what's already written.

Click to expand...

Okay, e, let's review. Paul Manafort did in fact admit to working with Russians given the Trump campaign. Trump's inner circle did in fact meet at Trump To

Landon Caeli said:

I'm a blue collar worker myself

Click to expand...

Are you a truck driver?

Servus said:

....There's no reason for anyone to make up what's already written.

Click to expand...

Wow they went into this meeting for the purpose of availing themselves of Russian govt support for their campaign!

Hentenza said:

Unfortunately that is not what is happening here. Not too many 6’2” caucasians being stopped for suspicion of being in the country illegally. But anyone that “looks” Latino or those that are speaking Spanish are fair game. Hardly a comparison.

Click to expand...

So your argument is that looks should not cause one to be arrested. The converse is also true, looks should not exempt one from arrest.

Fact is people are breaking the law. The argument that they were not committing a crime at the time of arrest is spurious. Their mere presence in the country without permission is a crime in itself.

If I look like people that are breaking the law, I would be expecting to be detained and questioned. But for the fact that illegal immigration is a rampant problem in this country, due to previous lax enforcement, Latinos would not be subject to questioning.

Crying citizenship and rights violations does not make crime go away. It condones and encourages it.

I live in San Antonio, TX. It is the most Latino city in the USA and we voted for Donald Trump because we are sick and tired of citizenship becoming a joke and illegals held up as martyrs

We love Mexican culture in Texas and are decedents of the Original Tejanos who were Mexicans that wanted to breathe free in the Republic of Texas. Yes Anglo brothers helped form the Republic, but Latinos were equal citizens. When it was no longer possible due to threats from Mexico and the failure of Mexico to recognize the Republic of Texas, we joined the United States to preserve freedom. We are proud of our citizenship and will gladly defend it to an officer of HSA in order to have illegals removed that would subvert our freedom

Come to San Antonio and see how many Mexican Americans are crying about ICE. We are not. It’s all left wing propaganda. Citizenship is a privilege. God bless Donald Trump

"Yo prometo lealtad a la bandera de los estados Unidos de America, y a la Republica que representa, una Nacion bajo Dios, entera, con libertad y justicia para todos."

FredVB said:

There are instructions. But we should both see that in the new covenant we who are saved are not saved according to our following instructions. It is with repentant faith coming to Christ. God is gracious, but would lead us, and it is desirable that we grow more, which is with learning God's will and doing what is for us to do according to that. Admittedly there will always be more to learn, in this life. There is much for it. If we assume we know all of it we are not open in the way to grow anymore. There is less reason to be left remaining here, then.

Click to expand...

That's cool May we all continue learning and growing ✝

Grace and peace to you, my man!

Jerry N. said:

I still get a little angry when I read that people were so much more stupid than we are now.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that, look at Martin Luther he knew the earth was stationary & didn't move.

Valletta said:

Ford backs President Trump’s new auto tariffs, calls them a win for America​

https://www.rsbnetwork.com/news/ford-backs-president-trumps-new-auto-tariffs-calls-them-a-win-for-america/

Click to expand...

Step by step...

" the Bible was created hundreds of years after the time of Jesus “by a pagan emperor for political reasons.”"

True but only if one considers the emperor was unifying the empire after civil war and this religion was a tool in doing so. It had helped in his winning the war against the latin side of the empire when using crosses on armor to convince opposing soldiers who were Christian to surrender or switch sides rather than fight their own..

“Jesus wasn’t a Christian. He was a Jew. And he didn’t come to create a religion.”

Fact.

" be honest with ourselves and start listening to the truth that is behind it,”

True

"Jesus’ priority was people’s hearts, not churches, denominations, or dogma."

True. It is man that likes to institutionalize everything. His 'church' was built upon the rock solid foundation of God's truths, not man's.

“deeply flawed men, written, rewritten, translated, re-translated, filtered through kings, priests and politicians.”

As scholars and the oldest texts, the Dead sea scrolls, have shown

“argued over by 45,000 different Christian denominations who all swear they’re the ones who are right for 2,000 years"

Undeniable

“Kids do not need theological degrees. They need simple truth.”
“The gospel that Jesus taught is not about control; it’s about freedom,”

See Jesus' mention of children and His feud with the Sanhedrin. One suggests simple truth and the other calling out human government and control disguised as humans using of God.

"Dr. Eric Mason, founder and senior pastor of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia, commented on Allred’s post, “I cannot even believe he made all of these fallacious [claims,] say the Bible was written by Constantine.”

That was never said that I can see. Is this then false witness?

"Jesus was indeed a Jew, Huff acknowledged, and Jesus was not a Christian because Christians did not exist yet. They derived their name from Jesus. And it is true he did not come to start a religion. “He came to fulfill that which was prophesied about him already,” said Huff."

Agreed

“Those first Christians were Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah........... they didn’t cease to become Jews. They weren’t converting to a new religion.”

Exactly, but they were indeed what would be the first of the new movement which would eventually be called Christian.

" Because they were and already had been considered authoritative Scripture for centuries.”

Some, not all. The idea was to weed out what did not fit, especially with Hellenistic thinking, in order to unify what would become a controlling governmental religion within the empire, dictating authourity over the rebellious factions of the religion to eliminate dissent.

"he said that no one would live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God,” said Huff. "

Huff tries to take scripture that refers to the OT and apply it to the NT. Misappropriated.

"Huff encouraged his viewers to take Allred’s advice to listen for the truth and to do their own research."

True.

“voted on by bishops under a pagan emperor,” “didn’t even exist in [Jesus’] lifetime,” and “is not God.”

True but not only was the compilation eventually used as a unifying tool within the empire's religion but also became our prime source of the Will of the Father and the story of His struggle with adversity in both us and elohim..

"and he strongly suggested that knowledge and education were antithetical to truly knowing God."

Yes, if it means having to adhere to strict doctrinal shackles of man, rather than the freedom to continually seek God as we are commanded to do. There is no final say by an institution. Salvation is a personal goal, not to be guided by human agenda rather than the Kingdom which they rejected in the Empire's time.

"Any time you question the authority, the first people to rush to its defense are the ones who treat their degrees like divine credentials,” said Allred, “as if God speaks louder to men with titles than men without.”

Such has always been the way of man, especially those who seek power. Every governing body of man seeks the same while the Kingdom of God is the opposite. Is it any wonder that the more man learns to think for themselves that authourity increases surveillance. Today is a prime example of power fearing for itself. Its time is coming to an end as the will o God will replace the selfishness of mankind.

“Theological certainty is spiritual death. And it was those who claimed to know God and speak for God, who ultimately crucified God’s son."

Absolutely, or Jesus wouldn't have said to continually seek God. He wouldn't have disputed the clergy. He wouldn't have said God's Will be done, not man's. And yes they did crucify Him just as they have always destroyed that which offends their notion of authourity.

As for the people's comments, God has always had to face opposition by those who would rather defend the world and the authourity and institutions of man over God's simple truth. Worldly is as worldly does and will always defend self before the will of God..

You know, Steve, you are missing a great opportunity. Precision can be achieved without power tools, but it can't be achieved until you know what precision is and have a reliable means to measure for it. The Egyptians had a robust metrology and the math to back it up. They understood fractional measurement and and had calibrated, government maintained standards. How precisly could they measure? I have no idea, but you should be checking it out, because if it turns out that they could measure with serious precision, then they could produce the artifacts, and "woo" would not be required. With nothing but hand tools I could build you a lathe made mostly of wood, with a few small bits of iron, and no moving parts, no wheels required. On that lathe I could turn a piece of metal to any reasonable degree of precision you required. I know I could do it because I have done it before. But if I did not understand precision and how to measure for it, backed up by the math, then I could not do it at all, even with the most modern CNC lathe going.

Did the Egyptians make center lathes like that sooner than we know about? Who knows? Maybe they figured out something else. What we do know is that they had a sufficiently sophisticated concept of metrology that they could have done it.

ARBITER01 said:

The blood of Jesus "renewed" our human spirit into His likeness, hence why all of us, male or female, are considered brethren. We wasn't given a new human spirit that we didn't have before, it was regenerated from it's fallen state.

Click to expand...

Exactly. However this is in contradiction to what you then follow up with...

ARBITER01 said:

The goal for us is Christ-likeness. Jesus expects us who are believers of His, to do the same works as He did. We can't do that if we are dominated with sins in our life, hence, we have to have victory in our new-born lives over those sins of the past. For some folks, it can take quite a bit of time, but it is to be a continual climb in holiness with GOD. Holiness is spiritual cleanliness.

Click to expand...

If the goal is Christ-likeness, this goal was achieved at the renewal of our spirit. At that moment we were made into the likeness of Christ. It had/has nothing to do with our behavior and everything to do with our condition. Our spirit being in a fallen state, as you put it, left us separated from God in the image of Adam, the first man. Once our spirit was renewed, Holiness was achieved. You don't endeavour to become more holy, you are either holy, or you are not. There is no semi or partial with holiness.
Also, holiness is found in the spiritual, not in the physical. When we receive our new body, free of the sinful nature, it is just that, a new body. We do not receive a new spirit or a new soul. It is in the body that sin exists. Our spirit is already holy and our soul, in our present condition, struggles between the desires of the flesh and the desires of the spirit. The flesh desires what is in opposition to God, while the spirit desires the things of God. Once our corrupted flesh is replaced with our new flesh, there remains no more struggle. Only the desire for the things of God.

Our endeavour to reduce the sinful behavior in our life should serve only two purposes. The first is that there is no permanent joy found in sinning. Temporary yes, but not permanent. Second, we are to be a kingdom of priests. We are to be a representation of our Father, and we do this best be loving our neighbour, regardless of their behavior. Sin was overcome and defeated by God. It is no longer an issue between humanity and God. Although, Satan would certainly have you believe that it is. What better way to keep you focused on yourself than to have you believe your behavior is the problem.

Servus said:

If both the left and the right are in agreement that the economy is doing well and inflation has been eliminated, then stimulus payments should make it even better.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works: stimulating the economy means increasing inflation. If the economy is good, then it doesn't need stimulating and more inflation. If the economy is slow, stagnant or receding, then stimulation is in order. If the economy is too hot, then stimulation will make things worse.

The time for deficit spending is during recessions. When the recession has ceased, it it time to pay down debts.