I'm not into the belief that God is the sole active agent in salvation. Or that only saving grace given to the elect to regenerate them and to give them new birth is irresistible and effectual. Thats to much like coercion to me. The dragging, kicking and screaming scenario.
It appears that you are using rationalization and emotion as an excuse to reject Biblical doctrine.
The Holy Spirit does not overwhelm and force the person to repent and believe; rather, the Holy Spirit transforms the person’s heart so that they want to repent and believe.
Nobody has ever said anything about "force". And yes, I'm glad you agree that the Holy Spirit transforms the person's heart (that's "regeneration") prior to, and causing them, to repent and believe.
They choose to believe and that decision to believe is the most important choice we ever make. It shapes all our other decisions. God does not compel us to believe any more than He compels us to keep any commandments, despite His perfect desire to have us come to Him.
Of course, if you were a Calvinist, Chalcedon would call you out for not having any "Scripture". But he's on your side, so I'm sure you'll get a pass.
“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” -John 6:65
This is a cherry-picked translation.
"given" | 7 | KJV, NLT, ASV, YLT, Darby, WEB, HNV, |
"granted" | 5 | NKJV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, |
"enabled" | 1 | NIV |
"allowed" | 1 | NET |
Of all the translations on the BLB website, 12 of them render it "given" or "granted", while only two render it with the weaker "enabled" or "allowed".
Jesus could have clarified His meaning by saying, “This is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father drags or makes him.”
I see... So this is why you no longer need a Bible, you simply let a really bad website, "Soteriology 101", tell you what to believe.
But here's the problem.... Jesus ALREADY told us that God "draws" ("helkuo") His people to the Son, so we already know that's true. Just because v. 65 tells us He "gives" us to the Son ("didomi") doesn't erase the fact that He gave us by "drawing" us. It simply ADDS to our understanding, rather than "replacing" it.
Jesus had the choice of many Greek words that could have clearly indicated that intention
He did. He used "helkuo" in v. 44.
You're not supposed to simply ignore it because it doesn't match your theology.
but Jesus said “didomi” which is typically understood as “to grant, permit or enable.”
This is why Soteriology 101 is such a biased, worthless website. You used quotation marks, so what are you quoting? If you're quoting Soteriology 101, then what source did THEY quote? You don't know, do you?
The basic gloss for 'didomI" is to "give". It can have various levels depending on context, ranging from "enable" to "cause to happen". But since you have to smuggle in your false doctrine of "free will", you are forced by your theological bias to choose the WEAKEST connotation of the term, in order to maximize the "room" to wedge in man's "free will".
So let's check the lexicons...
BDAG:
δίδωμι
1. to give as an expression of generosity, give, donate
2. to give someth. out, give, bestow, grant
3. to express devotion, give
4. to cause to happen, esp. in ref. to physical phenomena, produce, make, cause, give
5. to put someth. in care of another, entrust
6. to engage in a financial transaction a. of payment
pay, give
7. appoint to special responsibility, appoint
8. to cause someth. to happen, give
9. to bear as a natural product, yield, produce
10. to dedicate oneself for some purpose or cause, give up, sacrifice
11. to cause (oneself) to go, go, venture somewhere
12. to use an oracular device, draw/cast lots Ac 1:26.
13. to grant by formal action, grant, allow,
14. to cause to come into being, institute περιτομὴν δ. institute circumcision B 9:7.
15. give up, someth. that has been under one’s control for a relatively long time, give up, give back
16. to proffer someth., extend, offer
Thayer:
1325. δίδωμι; didōmi to give;
Louw & Nida:
13.128 δίδωμι:
to cause to happen, used particularly in relationship to physical events — ‘
to make, to cause, to give, to produce.
Calvinists often use the term “enable” or “grant” as if it somehow connotes “effectual causation,”
This is quite disingenuous. We correctly assert that "give" connotes effectual causation. But then YOU change it to "enable", to weaken it
but that is simply a systematic presumption they are reading onto these terms.
Nope. It is YOUR "systematic presumption" which weakens "give" to merely "enables", so that you can try to smuggle in "free will".
I can enable you to call me by giving you my phone number, but you still have to pick up the phone and dial. Since when does “to enable” necessitate “to effectually cause?”
That's not how it's used in Scripture.
Again, you are cherry-picking an analogy that matches your false teaching, and we are supposed to blindly believe it's the same meaning in Scripture.
A cancerous website.