Apple Sky said:

Actually rainbows are not arches but are full circles.

Click to expand...

No. There is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Dikaioumenoi said:

The Father's drawing is an enabling action. The conditional statement tells us nothing about who ultimately comes. So if the drawing can fail, then you are saying God can fail in His attempt to create the very possibility of coming. The creation of that possibility is what the drawing is. "No one is able to come unless drawn." The success of the drawing is the precondition for the possibility.

So is the Father's act of enablement necessarily effective, or not? If it is, your definition of ἑλκύω collapses your own position. If it is not, then the possibility of salvation itself becomes uncertain.

Click to expand...

Okay supposing the Father is successful in His Drawing enablement, does that guarantee that the ones drawn to Christ will go to Him and become believers, converts?

I watched Fr Chris Alar often on YouTube. I like his talks!

Desk trauma said:

Will no one rid us of this troublesome document!

Click to expand...

No one has been following that piece of paper since at least 1972.

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...