Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[DHK]

Your aversion to Scripture is astounding HP. Your actions parallel those of the J.W.'s. Let me repeat the challenge (for the third time), and see if you can get it straight.

Now remember. The passage in question is John 6:37-44.

As I perceive it, you have not attempted thus far to demonstrate that you are right. What is the meaning of John 6:37-44? Dr. Walters did a fine job of exegeting the passage. Your response was to cast aspersions. I would only conclude from your subsequent posts that you are unable to give any exposition of the passage and demonstrate through exegesis and/or exposition that you have the right interpretation.
Prove me wrong.

As I perceive it, you have not attempted thus far to demonstrate that you are right. What is the meaning of John 6:37-44? Dr. Walters did a fine job of exegeting the passage. Your response was to cast aspersions. I would only conclude from your subsequent posts that you are unable to give any exposition of the passage and demonstrate through exegesis and/or exposition that you have the right interpretation.
Prove me wrong.

Still too much of a coward to answer the question HP?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Let the reader note that DW avoids my direct questions like the plague, refusing thus far to answer them.

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.

HP: Hogwash.

DW: 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

HP: You are dead wrong in your interpolation. You assume without proof that God’s will is not synonymous with a desire of God, in like manner as He desires for all to be saved. The text, in and of itself by NO means demands any such interpolation or restrictions as you place on it.

DW: 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 …

HP: No it does not. You are adding to the Word of God your interpolation. Please show us where the verse demands an ‘effectual’ calling. You read that into the text, and is your privilege to do so, but don’t try and sound all uppity as if the text demands such an interpretation, for it does not.

DW: and NONE are cast out

HP: It only states that as being the will of God, as is the desire of God that none should perish. At least when I go outside the text I go to another Scripture. You just simply add the word ‘effectual’ into the text without the slightest backing other than DW says so.

DW: 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."

HP: Again, only if you add to the text an explanation not found in the text concerning “His will,” i.e., being ‘effectual.’ You have no right or logic to demand that from this text. It is nothing more or less than a conclusion of yours, reasoning in a circle from the unfounded presupposition of OSAS.

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

HP: Some of know full well that God wills for all to be saved will not be the case in end, although it is clearly the hearts desire and will of God is for that to be accomplished. It is a total fallacy to read into the text an “effectual calling,” first because the text demands no such conclusion, and second because to do so necessitates a limited atonement, irresistible grace, and double predestination, all of which are directly contrary to the Word of God.

 

[ccrobinson]

Get a life. You are acting like a pack of rabid dogs with your personal attacks, badgering and personal remarks.

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.

First, perhaps you could avoid your own personal attacks and remarks against me? Physician, heal thyself!

Second, why would I do this? Since I agree with Dr. Walter and DHK, there's no need for me to do any such thing. You are the one who disagrees, thus it's incumbent upon you to prove your position. To date, you haven't proven your position.

 

[DHK]

One does not answer a question with a question, or with an aspersion.
Do you know what exposition is?
Do you know what exegesis is?
Why don't you take the passage in question and try it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I have not simply asked a question, but have stated precisely where DW adds his own interpolation to the text. I have as much right to ask pertinent questions to the one I am debating as they do to me.

By the way, where is your explanation of the text???? Can you tell us why the will of God of necessity is an 'effectual' calling, and if so, how do you avoid irresistable grace, absolute double predestination, and a limited atonement? Here is your chance to shine. :wavey:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have not simply asked a question, but have stated precisely where DW adds his own interpolation to the text. I have as much right to ask pertinent questions to the one I am debating as they do to me.

By the way, where is your explanation of the text???? Can you tell us why the will of God of necessity is an 'effectual' calling, and if so, how do you avoid irresistable grace, absolute double predestination, and a limited atonement? Here is your chance to shine. :wavey:

That is not true. If one believes in conditional election the same outcome is true. If one believes in general atonement but eternal security of true believers the same out come is true.

The text is only a problem to those who deny eternal security.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have not simply asked a question, but have stated precisely where DW adds his own interpolation to the text. I have as much right to ask pertinent questions to the one I am debating as they do to me.

By the way, where is your explanation of the text???? Can you tell us why the will of God of necessity is an 'effectual' calling, and if so, how do you avoid irresistable grace, absolute double predestination, and a limited atonement? Here is your chance to shine. :wavey:

Let me ask you a question. IF you were going to suggest that in this context either conditional or uncondtional election were behind the giving of the Father to the Son "OF ALL" that do come to Him, would you not first do an eisgetical/exposition of this context to see if it would harmonize with that concept OR would you simply dismiss this text and every other text that might suggest the same thing???? If you dismiss EVERY TEXT that MIGHT suggest the same thing wouldn't that prove you had a presuppositional position that would not allow you to even consider much less attempt to do an honest exegetical/exposition of ANY TEXT that might oppose your presupposition against it???????

 

[DHK]

By the way, where is your explanation of the text???? Can you tell us why the will of God of necessity is an 'effectual' calling, and if so, how do you avoid irresistable grace, absolute double predestination, and a limited atonement? Here is your chance to shine. :wavey:

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1572316&postcount=48

Now have fun.

 

[Jedi Knight]

It points directly to the Fathers will that none given to Christ should be lost.

Who is doing the will of the Father here? Christ is! So your saying Jesus doesn't always fulfill the Father's will??? Jesus speaking "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.". Does Jesus do the will of the Father 100%???? John 8:29 for I always do what pleases him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Let the reader note that DW continues to avoid direct questions as to his beliefs when asked. What is he hiding???? If he believes in double predestination, irresistible grace and a limited atonement, why not say so?? If not why not show us how he avoids them with his interpretation of John 6?

DW: Let me ask you a question. IF you were going to suggest that in this context either conditional or uncondtional election were behind the giving of the Father to the Son "OF ALL" that do come to Him, would you not first do an eisgetical/exposition of this context to see if it would harmonize with that concept OR would you simply dismiss this text and every other text that might suggest the same thing????

HP: Personally I would do just as I have done, and that is to compare Scripture with Scripture concerning the will of God. Having done that, there is no way I can logically or reasonably dismiss the Scriptural evidence that the will of God does not necessarily necessitate anything as you suppose. One thing I certainly will not do is to consciously or unconsciously read into the text something that is simply not stated or implied, i.e., that the will of God mandates a necessary end as you have done.

DW: If you dismiss EVERY TEXT that MIGHT suggest the same thing wouldn't that prove you had a presuppositional position that would not allow you to even consider much less attempt to do an honest exegetical/exposition of ANY TEXT that might oppose your presupposition against it???????

HP: Let the reader know that I have not simply dismissed every text, nor have I dismissed any text in particular. I have shown that the will of God in this text and in others does not necessarily mandate a necessitated end. I have not used presuppositions to establish this truth as DW is suggesting, but rather I have pointed out the clear truth of the will of God in all men coming to the truth, and believing that the Scriptures are clear, they do not teach universalism.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I have shown that the will of God in this text and in others does not necessarily mandate a necessitated

What is clear is that you don't see Jesus obeying the will of the Father....in all points.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: What is clear is that you don't see Jesus obeying the will of the Father....in all points.

HP: What should be clear is that I do not believe Scriptures support double predestination, limited atonement or irresistible grace, all of which are logically implied by the position DW has forced the passage in John 6 to imply.

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: What should be clear is that I do not believe Scriptures support double predestination, limited atonement or irresistible grace.

Did Jesus do ALL the Fathers will?? Yes or No

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

When promises are built upon unfounded presuppositions as in clear in the manner in which DW reads this text, they are not to be trusted. They are promises built upon the sand.

 

[Dr. Walter]

[COLOR=black[COLOR=black]HP: Let the reader know that I have not simply dismissed every text, nor have I dismissed any text in particular. I have shown that the will of God in this text and in others does not necessarily mandate a necessitated end. I have not used presuppositions to establish this truth as DW is suggesting, but rather I have pointed out the clear truth of the will of God in all men coming to the truth, and believing that the Scriptures are clear, they do not teach universalism. [/COLOR]

What you state above is simply a lie! You have not shown that this text does not mandate a necessitated end! What in the world do you think the repeated "but should raise it again in THE LAST DAY" is all about if that is not a necessitated end and a statement that REAFFIRMS the previous phrase "lose nothing" which in turn reaffirms the pevious statement "I will in no wise cast out"?????

If Jesus attempted to teach a necessitated end what language could he use that he did not use in this text??????

What you have done is denied the very words of the texts in question and revised them to suit your own doctrine.

Here is the real kicker - "election" is a biblical doctrine in regard to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13-14) and there are only two possible interpretations presented - (1) unconditional and (2) conditional and your interpretation violates both.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: Did Jesus do ALL the Fathers will?? Yes or No

HP: First, you tell me if it is God will for all to be saved, and whether or not all will be saved by Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

When you answer my questions DW we might address election.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: What you state above is simply a lie! You have not shown that this text does not mandate a necessitated end!

HP: Could you beat on the pulpit a little louder???:laugh:

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: First, you tell me if it is God will for all to be saved, and whether or not all will be saved by Christ.

I asked first....unless your bossy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

When you answer my questions DW we might address election.

Election is my answer! Have you not got that by now??? The Father elected "US" in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and chose us from the beginning "TO" salvation "THROUGH" sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" that is, "he called us through the gospel to the obtaining of the glory" (2 Thes. 3:6). Who did? The Father did! Thus whom the Father chose, the Father drew, the Father gave and the consequence is that they come to the son -all that were given because all were chosen.

These the Father gave to the Son and that is why their end is sure. The father did not give "all flesh" to the Son - Jn. 17:2

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Now, one does not have to believe in UNCONDITIONAL election to arrive at the same sure end. A person can believe in CONDITIONAL election and arrive at the same conclusion but no one believing what you believe can arrive at that conclusion drawn in John 6:36-65.