Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I made my replies to this passage of Scripture, along with my comments on how DW was ending up in error........ if one can read. Apparently some of you have a problem doing just that.

 

[DHK]

I made my replies to this passage of Scripture, along with my comments on how DW was ending up in error........ if one can read. Apparently some of you have a problem doing just that.

Give me a link where you have expounded John 6:37-44.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Romans 6:8 "Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. John 14:19 Because I live you shall live also. Hebrews 7:25 "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them." :jesus:

 

[Jedi Knight]

Give me a link where you have expounded John 6:37-44.

I think Heavenly is from Dodge City. :laugh:

 

[ccrobinson]

I made my replies to this passage of Scripture,

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Nobody, not DHK, not Dr. Walter, not me, has asked you to make your replies to a passage of Scripture. You have been challenged to exegete Scripture and you have refused to do so. If you think your replies to a passage of Scripture is exegesis, then you need to learn what the word exegesis actually means.

Here's a helpful definition.

exegesis - critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

You have not done this. Not one single person on this thread thinks you've done this. All you ever do is tell somebody else why you think they're wrong. You have never given your own interpretation of Scripture. I'm not sure you have the stones to actually do it.

... along with my comments on how DW was ending up in error........ if one can read. Apparently some of you have a problem doing just that.

I can read just fine. Show me a link where you actually explained your interpretation of Scripture. Don't show me a link where you respond to Dr. Walter's post with some doublespeak that supposedly shows how he is wrong. Don't show me a link where you talk some doublespeak and accuse DHK of being a Calvinist. Either me show me the link where I can find actual exegesis, or take the time to exegete Scripture.

Time to put up or shut up.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CCRobinson, DHK, and DW, let me explain something to all of you. I have spoken directly to the points I feel are pertinent in the text as well as the comments by DW, and if you feel that is not critical enough or according to your own private interpretation of what constitutes ‘sound exegesis,’ etc. so be it. Get a life. You are acting like a pack of rabid dogs with your personal attacks, badgering and personal remarks. Some example of Christian charity you and others are sharing with the world. Oh well, what’s new?

 

[DHK]

CCRobinson, DHK, and DW, let me explain something to all of you. I have spoken directly to the points I feel are pertinent in the text as well as the comments by DW, and if you feel that is not critical enough or according to your own private interpretation of what constitutes ‘sound exegesis,’ etc. so be it. Get a life. You are acting like a pack of rabid dogs with your personal attacks, badgering and personal remarks. Some example of Christian charity you and others are sharing with the world. Oh well, what’s new?

Is this an admission that you really don't know the meaning of John 6:37-44?
We will count that as a victory.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

For the benefit of the liars and those that simply cannot read, claiming that I have not addressed the text, here is one post, #100, for your pleasure again.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

HP: DW tries to make this passage walk on all four legs in support of a system of necessity know as OSAS, the heart and soul of Calvinism. There are some important factors to consider that evidently DW has not considered. The first glaring thing that stands out to me is the notion of the ‘will of Him” or the will of God. God wills many things, including the salvation of all, 2Pe 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” When this passage speaks of the will of God ‘willing’ that every one that ‘seeth the Son and believeth’ may have eternal life, that in no wise is paramount to OSAS or that all that come to Him will persevere in faith until the end. Again, God’s will, in reality, does not necessitate salvation, but is an expression of His desire which some times is not accomplished when it comes to sentient moral beings exercising a free will. The only way this passage supports OSAS is if one applies such a presupposition to the passage as a lenses by which to interpret it.

Secondly, DW consistently and without fail merely begs the question of the manner in which those come to Him. DW insists on God as a first cause, necessitating the outcome. Again, that is absolutely contradictory to God not being a respecter of persons. The only end to the argument of DW is that if in fact God is the first cause of salvation, in that salvation is a necessitated action of the will of God upon the chosen elect, (man being only a puppet receptor of election) is the absurdity of Calvinistic double predestination, irresistible grace, and limited atonement. No DW, you are far gone from the truth in your interpretation of this passage. You may be ignorant of your own devices, but you are allowing an unproven presupposition of OSAS drive your conclusions and as such arrive a conclusions far from the truth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

For the benefit of the liars and those that simply cannot read, claiming that I have not addressed the text, here is one post, #100, for your pleasure again.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

HP: DW tries to make this passage walk on all four legs in support of a system of necessity know as OSAS, the heart and soul of Calvinism. There are some important factors to consider that evidently DW has not considered. The first glaring thing that stands out to me is the notion of the ‘will of Him” or the will of God. God wills many things, including the salvation of all, 2Pe 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” When this passage speaks of the will of God ‘willing’ that every one that ‘seeth the Son and believeth’ may have eternal life, that in no wise is paramount to OSAS or that all that come to Him will persevere in faith until the end. Again, God’s will, in reality, does not necessitate salvation, but is an expression of His desire which some times is not accomplished when it comes to sentient moral beings exercising a free will. The only way this passage supports OSAS is if one applies such a presupposition to the passage as a lenses by which to interpret it.

Secondly, DW consistently and without fail merely begs the question of the manner in which those come to Him. DW insists on God as a first cause, necessitating the outcome. Again, that is absolutely contradictory to God not being a respecter of persons. The only end to the argument of DW is that if in fact God is the first cause of salvation, in that salvation is a necessitated action of the will of God upon the chosen elect, (man being only a puppet receptor of election) is the absurdity of Calvinistic double predestination, irresistible grace, and limited atonement. No DW, you are far gone from the truth in your interpretation of this passage. You may be ignorant of your own devices, but you are allowing an unproven presupposition of OSAS drive your conclusions and as such arrive a conclusions far from the truth.

First, you went outside the text to define the expression as used in the text when the text itself gives its definition of how it is to be understood:

"And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

However, your interpretation does not only go outside the context to provide your answer but an answer that directly CONTRADICTS the very stated application given in this context. That is called EISGESIS not exegesis.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

While we are still on this passage, who will be the first to tell us by what means the Father receives or obtains those that are given to the Son? If this point is not established, the rest of ones exegesis on this passage renders little if any real substance.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: First, you went outside the text to define the expression as used in the text when the text itself gives its definition of how it is to be understood:

HP: Scripture is to be interpreted by comparing Scripture with Scripture, just ask DHK.

DW: "And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

HP: My point has been and remains the same, the mere mention of the Father’s will is NOT synonymous with that which in the end comes to fruition. Certainly God’s will is to lose none, but that is not to say that some will not be lost. Again, I must certainly go outside of this one verse to establish a solid and truthful point. I am going to a specific verse that sheds clear light upon the will of God, and that His will necessitates the salvation of no one. This passage is no island to itself nor can any verse be justly treated as if though it is.

“His will,” is to lose nothing. “His will” does not state nor imply that none will be lost due to His will necessitating the outcome, nor does it state or imply that some given to the Son would not be lost in the end. The text certainly implies that it is NOT God’s desire for Christ to lose any, but again, the text itself does not necessitate, in and of itself, that none will be lost. I might word the text in this manner without doing it any injustice. The Father desires that I might not lose any that He gives me, just as it is the Fathers will that none whatsoever should perish.

This portion of the text necessitates the salvation of no one. It points directly to the Fathers will that none given to Christ should be lost.

 

[Dr. Walter]

While we are still on this passage, who will be the first to tell us by what means the Father receives or obtains those that are given to the Son? If this point is not established, the rest of ones exegesis on this passage renders little if any real substance.

I just proved from the context that your counter intepretation of "the will of the Father" is in direct contradiction to the explicitly defined application of those words and you think by going again OUTSIDE the context will substantiate this same theory????????????

The context defines coming to Jesus as believing and so you cannot rationalize that it was believing in Christ that was the basis or WHY the Father gave them to Christ as that REVERSES the very explicitly stated cause and effect given.

Even if you did rationalize that being given by the Father was based upon prescience or God looking down and seeng who would believe and therefore giving them to the Son bECAUSE OF prescience it does not help your denial "OF ALL.....I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" except and unless God can be wrong in His prescience!

You know you are in an impossible dilemma and that is precisely why you want to divert the discussion from this context and do not want to enter into any serious exegesis of this context.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: I just proved from the context that your counter intepretation of "the will of the Father" is in direct contradiction to the explicitly defined application of those words and you think by going again OUTSIDE the context will substantiate this same theory????????????

HP: No you have not proved any such thing. I know what you desire for the text to prove, but that does not make it so as I have clearly set forth.

DW: The context defines coming to Jesus as believing and so you cannot rationalize that it was believing in Christ that was the basis or WHY the Father gave them to Christ as that REVERSES the very explicitly stated cause and effect given.

HP: Here again you merely beg the question as to why the Father gave them to Christ. Tell us plainly DW. Is it not true that you are promoting arbitrary selection, limited atonement, and as such double predestination by your so-called exegesis of the text? The Calvinsitic tunnel exegesis you are applying in finding the meaning of this text is showing.

DW: Even if you did rationalize that being given by the Father was based upon prescience or God looking down and seeng who would believe and therefore giving them to the Son bECAUSE OF prescience it does not help your denial "OF ALL.....I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" except and unless God can be wrong in His prescience!

HP: I have never rationalized that being given to the Father was based upon precience. Putting up a paper duck to shoot at might serve your selfish purpose of misrepresenting the views of other or adding credence to your own, but does nothing to support the truth.

DW: You know you are in an impossible dilemma and that is precisely why you want to divert the discussion from this context and do not want to enter into any serious exegesis of this context.

HP: I am in no such dilemma. I am in no way diverting the attention away from the context of this passage, but to the contrary I am speaking directly concerning it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

For the listener: When DW speaks of "serious exegesis," it is only accomplished, and can only be accomplished, if in fact ones conclusions are found to be consistent with the unproven presupposition of OSAS he desires to view this passage by.

Simply put, his so-called "serious exegesis" is nothing more or less than a futile lesson consisting in reasoning in a circle.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now CCRobinson, why don't you do something constructive for a change, and explain to the listener your critical interpretation of this passage. You as well DHK. :wavey:

 

[Dr. Walter]

The future tense "I SHALL lose nothing" is then reinforced by the certainity that nothing shall be lost "but should raise it up at the last day." Hence, you are wrong that "the will" of God can be thwarted here or that it is just mere desire or that mere desire is the meaning of "the will of the Father" in this context

HP: Scripture is to be interpreted by comparing Scripture with Scripture, just ask DHK.


HP: My point has been and remains the same, the mere mention of the Father’s will is NOT synonymous with that which in the end comes to fruition. Certainly God’s will is to lose none, but that is not to say that some will not be lost. Again, I must certainly go outside of this one verse to establish a solid and truthful point. I am going to a specific verse that sheds clear light upon the will of God, and that His will necessitates the salvation of no one. This passage is no island to itself nor can any verse be justly treated as if though it is.

“His will,” is to lose nothing. “His will” does not state nor imply that none will be lost due to His will necessitating the outcome, nor does it state or imply that some given to the Son would not be lost in the end. The text certainly implies that it is NOT God’s desire for Christ to lose any, but again, the text itself does not necessitate, in and of itself, that none will be lost. I might word the text in this manner without doing it any injustice. The Father desires that I might not lose any that He gives me, just as it is the Fathers will that none whatsoever should perish.

This portion of the text necessitates the salvation of no one. It points directly to the Fathers will that none given to Christ should be lost.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: The future tense "I SHALL lose nothing" is then reinforced by the certainity that nothing shall be lost "but should raise it up at the last day." Hence, you are wrong that "the will" of God can be thwarted here or that it is just mere desire or that mere desire is the meaning of "the will of the Father" in this context

HP: In order for you to believe as you do, you have to first beg the question as to the will of God and presume without proof that it necessitates the outcome, and that the outcome, by necessity, must be as He wills. That is precisely where you beg the question and assume without proof the validity of your conclusion.

Why do you refuse to answer my direct questions? Here they are again. Tell us plainly DW. Is it not true that you are promoting arbitrary selection, limited atonement, and as such double predestination by your so-called exegesis of the text? If not why not?

You and others chide, belittle, falsely accuse, and attack me personally if in your estimation I do not answer or address in the manner you so desire the positions you pose. Why don't you have the courtesy to respond to my direct questions? How about a little fair play DW???

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Fair Play is relative. Its fair enough that his expectation is unlimited but obligation is nill.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: In order for you to believe as you do, you have to first beg the question as to the will of God and presume without proof that it necessitates the outcome, and that the outcome, by necessity, must be as He wills. That is precisely where you beg the question and assume without proof the validity of your conclusion.

Why do you refuse to answer my direct questions? Here they are again. Tell us plainly DW. Is it not true that you are promoting arbitrary selection, limited atonement, and as such double predestination by your so-called exegesis of the text? If not why not?

You and others chide, belittle, falsely accuse, and attack me personally if in your estimation I do not answer or address in the manner you so desire the positions you pose. Why don't you have the courtesy to respond to my direct questions? How about a little fair play DW???

Here is what you are trying to avoid. It is the proper exegesis of this passage that demands elective selection rather than a presupposition of elective selection that demands my interpretation of this passage.

The fact that the text first demands "ALL" that are given DO come" instead of merely all that are given are DESIRED to come proves your interpretation to be wrong. The best your interpretation could do is say they MIGHT come and God DESIRES they will come. But the text does not state that but describes this giving in EFFECTUAL application. Hence, all that are given equal all that come and NONE are cast out - v. 37

The same is true in verse 39 where you attempt to make "the will" of the Father simply DESIRE rather than EFFECTUAL. Again, Jesus incorporates ALL of those in verse 37 in the "OF ALL" in verse 39 as ALL in verse 37 that were given DO EFFECTUALLY come and NONE are cast out and so it is these that Jesus says "OF ALL...I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" and then makes it INDIVIDUALLY effectual by saying "but should raise IT up at the last day." This covers the past (Father gives) the present "come") and the future "I SHALL" with effectual individual application to each one "but should raise IT up at the last day."

Your position denies the future assertion as well as the future individual application to the resurrection "OF ALL" being considered.


The fact that the text gives as the cause for coming the giving by the father and then asserts that "OF ALL" given to the Son that Christ "SHALL LOSE NOTHING" which is then in turn reaffirmed by the declaration by effectual INDIVIDUAL application "him" I will raise up at the last day demonstrates your intepretation of merely "desire" is wrong as it is proven to be effectual in terms of INDIVIDUAL application and certainty.

 

[DHK]

Now CCRobinson, why don't you do something constructive for a change, and explain to the listener your critical interpretation of this passage. You as well DHK. :wavey:

It is already been done. We are not the ones that disagree with Dr. Walters. You are. And you continuously demonstrate your ineptitude, inability, to exegete the same passage of Scripture, your cowardice to even attempt to do it, and the sinking ship you stand upon.