"given" is inclusive of "draw" in John 6

[Winman]

LOL, Luke, the man who follows the superstitions of a medieval novice who lived 500 years ago, who followed the Gnostic and Manichaen heresies of Augustine who lived 1500 years ago accuses me of superstition. This is a man that believes that sin is transmitted through sexual lust.

Can we say HYPOCRITE anyone??

I got a big kick out of the man-eating gar story Luke, that must keep the kids out of the "crick" as you say down your way. :laugh:



Don't get too close little boy, that thing will bite your head clean off!

Don't interrupt a funeral procession Luke, the spirits don't like that. You don't want to hear the owl either my man, and stay away from his nest. Be careful that spider don't write your name.

 

[Winman]

The fallen man IS a sinner by nature and that is why he sins by choice and by actions. He IS a sinner by nature because his heart IS wicked by MOTIVE and deceitful above all things. There is but one righteous motive acceptable in God's sight and that is all that one chooses to think, say and do should be for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31) and all fallen men "come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

So it is not a matter of being "compelled to sin" as though you ARE not a sinner and sin is come action that needs compulsion to make you a sinner. But rather you choose to sin and you do sin because you ARE a sinner by nature.

Baloney, you believe the man MUST sin because that is his nature. That is compulsion. You won't say that, but that is the fact even if you deny it. You can't teach that a person MUST sin and not teach COMPULSION. But that is how nearly all Calvinists speak, out of both sides of their mouth. And Biblicist is no exception to this.

Just as in the analogy Jesus gives of the good and evil tree. The products of the tree are determined by its nature. If the tree IS evil then the products are evil. If the tree IS good then the products are good. Fallen man at the root of his being -his heart - is evil by nature and therefore all the products that come forth from that heart are evil. Jesus says "FIRST make the tree good" and only then will the products be good. Likewise, marvel not that I say unto thee "Ye must be born again."

And Jesus said to "make the tree good and it's fruit good" showing man has control over how he acts.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Jesus didn't teach that man HAS to sin, Jesus taught that men have option, they can choose to be a good tree and bear good fruit, or else they can choose to be a corrupt tree and bear corrupt fruit.

Jesus did not teach Total Inability, Jesus taught that men have ABILITY.

No, there is a third and more contextual based interpretation. In context, he is urging those in whom the foundations have been laid to "go on to perfection" (Heb. 6:3). This same Greek term translated "perfection" has just been translated "full age" in Hebrews 5:14 and in the context this whole exhortation is about GROWING UP and being MATURE.

In verses 4-8 he considers the only hypothetical reason a true child of God could not go on to maturity and that is "if" (v. 6) they could fall away from salvation.

However, he denies this is possible for several reasons:

1. It would be impossible to renew them to a state of repentance

2. It would requires the recrucifixion of Christ as the failure would be Christ's not their's as He is the one entrusted to keep them (Jn. 6:38-39).

3. There are only two kinds of soils with only two consequences (vv. 7-8). Either you are a soil that has never been tilled and the end is destruction (lost man) or you are a soil that has been tilled and the end is harvest (saved) and so there is no third type which jumps back and forth from one state to another state.

4. There are things that accompany salvation that make this impossible to occur for saved people - v. 9

5. There are fruits evident in the lives of those he writes to which demonstrate they are of the latter soil which shall be harvested - vv. 10-11

6. There are the immutable promises of God that make this impossible

7. There is are forerunner or representative which completely satisfied full justice in our behalf and has been accepted by God into the holy of holies which makes this impossible.

Hence, Hebrews 6:3-14 is a defense of eternal security and a complete denial of the doctrine of apostasy from true salvation.

Right, so the writer of Hebrews simply wasted his time talking about an impossibility.

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, and I will give you a good deal because you are such a discerning fellow. :laugh:

This text does not say the Spirit has worked IN them but only shows that their rebellion is without excuse and they "turn...at my reproof" instead of repent because the EXTERNAL call does not turn anyone or save anyone but it does render all without excuse (2 Cor. 1:14-15).

Calvinist make no such argument but argue the very reverse - Jn. 1:13; 3:6

This text says no such thing. Nowhere in this text does it say men "can" repent. This text uses the imperative mode and commands them to repent. The reception of the Spirit here is not regeneration or the indwelling presence of the Spirit but the gifts of the Spirit which come after having been saved and water baptized or the gifts listed in the very next verses (vv. 39-40).

In addition the definite article is missing before the words "holy Spirit" in the Greek text which always refers to the gifts/fruits or products of the Spirit rather than his person. The very same thing is seen in Acts 8:14-17 where the Samaritans had already been saved and baptized and yet the Spirit had not "come upon them" in the sense of spiritual gifts. When Simon saw that through the laying on of apostolic hands the gifts of the Spirit were communciated to believers he said:


18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Paul told the born again Spirit indwelt believers in the Roman congregations that when he came he would lay his hands upon them and impart such spiritual gifts (Rom. 1:11) because no such sign gifts are found in the list of gifts they had (Rom. 12:6-13).

So you are confusing the sign gifts of the Spirit with the indwelling presence of the Spirit.

Wow, ten thousand words, and every bit of it is rubbish.

Like I said before, don't go into sales, you will starve.

 

[Iconoclast]

9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Paul said this to a person who tried to turn many away from the truth.

 

[Winman]

9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Paul said this to a person who tried to turn many away from the truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and introduced itself to you.

Gotta love how "holier than thou" Iconoclast thinks he is.

 

[Benjamin]

9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Paul said this to a person who tried to turn many away from the truth.

What is the truth about why you said this Icon?

 

[The Biblicist]

Baloney, you believe the man MUST sin because that is his nature. That is compulsion. You won't say that, but that is the fact even if you deny it. You can't teach that a person MUST sin and not teach COMPULSION. But that is how nearly all Calvinists speak, out of both sides of their mouth. And Biblicist is no exception to this.

You are intentionally perverting our position. We do not believe that man MUST sin in order to be a sinner - that is YOUR position. We believe as does Jesus that a evil tree brings forth evil fruits because it is evil by nature and cannot bring forth good fruits (works):


16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

You are not understanding the analogy. Grapes CANNOT be gathered from thorns or figs from thisles - it is not possible! It is this impossibility that is first established in verse 16 that verse 17 then says "EVEN SO" every good tree, (not some) brings forth good fruit and every evil tree brings forth evil fruit. A Fig tree cannot choose to become a thistle bush nor can a thorny tree choose to become a grape vine, however that is the nonsense you are teaching.

And Jesus said to "make the tree good and it's fruit good" showing man has control over how he acts.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

First, the text does not say who can "make" it so! Paul says it is God that makes one vessel to honor and another to dishonor (Rom. 9:21). The text does not say that the tree makes itself good or evil. If you disagree then simply show where in this text it says that? Second, you are directly contradicting Christ as you claim an evil tree is capable of bringing forth good fruit when He says it "cannot....neither can"

Jesus didn't teach that man HAS to sin, Jesus taught that men have option, they can choose to be a good tree and bear good fruit, or else they can choose to be a corrupt tree and bear corrupt fruit.

He said no such things! That is your pure perverted imagination. Second, what you are saying contradicts even the analogy being used as no tree in nature can make itself good or evil as it is what it is by nature. NO grape vine can transform itself into a thorn bush nor can a fig tree make itself poison ivy. That is the nonsense you are claiming which even nature does not support and Jesus draws his parables and analogies from what is true in nature.

Jesus did not teach Total Inability, Jesus taught that men have ABILITY.

You already admitted that John 6:44a teaches total inability! Indeed, if the words "no man can come" do not teach total inaiblity to come to Christ there would be no need to say "except the Father draw" as that very qualfication declares TOTAL inability or else Jesus would have said "all men can come to me" if they just want to.

Right, so the writer of Hebrews simply wasted his time talking about an impossibility.

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, and I will give you a good deal because you are such a discerning fellow. :laugh

Wow, ten thousand words, and every bit of it is rubbish.

Like I said before, don't go into sales, you will starve.

When you can't deal with contextual based facts you always respond without any substantance. Your only refuge is ridicule. However, my interpetation is solidly grounded in the grammatical and syntactical evidence and if anyone would like to provide any SUBSTANTIVE response to my seven point response please do. This is a very well developed passage to prove eternal security and so well developed that you can't respond to the seven contextual based evidences provided and spelled out in the very context.

 

[Winman]

What is the truth about why you said this Icon?

Oh no, Iconoclast implied that I was lost and a servant of Satan (again)! How will I ever get to sleep tonight?

Here is how you identify someone working for Satan;

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is the truth about why you said this Icon?

Winman's inability to provide any kind of substantive response to the seven contextual spelled out points I provided against his eisgesis of Hebrews 6:4-6.

Would you like to give a stab at it, hopefully with some show of substance?

 

[agedman]

Winman's inability to provide any kind of substantive response to the seven contextual spelled out points I provided against his eisgesis of Hebrews 6:4-6.

Would you like to give a stab at it, hopefully with some show of substance?

Do you really expect that even with substantive arguments presented on either side they would be swayed?

Their own bias obliges them in the concrete of intransigence.

At least when you present Scripture truth - it is the truth and doesn't rely upon adding words, and schemes that deny and distort what is Biblical.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you really expect that even with substantive arguments presented on either side they would be swayed?

Their own bias obliges them in the concrete of intransigence.

At least when you present Scripture truth - it is the truth and doesn't rely upon adding words, and schemes that deny and distort what is Biblical.

I don't write to convert them to the truth as that takes the supernatural power of God. I write to simply expose their falsehoods to those who are really seeking truth and reading the debates.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Do you really expect that even with substantive arguments presented on either side they would be swayed?

You are confusing "substantive" with "verbose".

Hey, it works on some people.

 

[Benjamin]

Winman's inability to provide any kind of substantive response...

Oh, silly me!

I thought it might be a veiled accusation intended to have the same effect as questioning another member’s salvation which apparently ya’ll consider to be a reasonable way to reply in a debate.

...to the seven contextual spelled out points I provided against his eisgesis of Hebrews 6:4-6.

Would you like to give a stab at it, hopefully with some show of substance?

No thanks,

I usually wait for those who demonstrate they can reason beyond the Calvie glasses on the end of their noses and can come to logical conclusions about the scriptural interpretations they force fit one premise at a time.

Its more fun for me when my opponents are interested in drawing out the truths through principled reasoning and critical thinking skills rather than trying skip by (smokescreen) the issue as you just attempted to do with the post of your's above.

 

[The Biblicist]

Its more fun for me

In other words you are as incapable as Winman to give any substantive response and so like him you flee to the only refuge you have - ridicule!

If my seven point response was merely "verbose" then it could be easily shown so by any capable exegete. Since neither have offered any contextual based critique of my exposition then it should be obvious to our readers who is really guilty of "verbose."

 

[Inspector Javert]

The point is that God does not force men to sin against their wills. He simply does not STOP them from sinning in accordance with their wills.

A million paragraphs about gar and you miss one critical point and that is.....

Winman does indeed understand this already. If you read his posts with any comprehension at all, you would realize that he understands that completely.

You spent several paragraphs insulting him, when the irony is:

It is YOU who doesn't understand how well Winman clearly understands the Calvinist position on this....
Winman's point (since you clearly don't understand it) is that it is BECAUSE they are constrained by their nature and will, and can't WANT to do anything else.

Win's point (which eludes you) is that compulsion is compulsion whether it is external (not Calvinism) or INTERNAL. <--(Calvinism). He simply knows you don't admit it to yourselves or anyone else.

Sheesh



They killed a lot of gar the same way in Louisiana and Mississippi and Florida too.

 

[The Biblicist]

A million paragraphs about gar and you miss one critical point and that is.....

Winman does indeed understand this already. If you read his posts at all. You would realize that he understands that completely.

You spent several paragraphs insulting him, when the irony is:

It is YOU who doesn't understand how well Winman clearly understands the Calvinist position on this....
Winman's point (since you clearly don't understand it) is that it is BECAUSE they are constrained by their nature and will, and can't WANT to do anything else.

Win's point (which you don't understand) is that compulsion is compulsion whether it is external (not Calvinism) or INTERNAL. <--(Calvinism). He simply knows you don't admit it to yourselves or anyone else.

Sheesh



They killed a lot of gar the same way in Louisiana and Mississippi and Florida too.

I hate to break this to but there is no such thing as a "will" independent of the nature of the being in which the will exists. If there were, then the will itself would be an independent being. God does not even have a will independent from his own nature. HIs nature is the internal coersive which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Him to lie and thus "not wanting" to lie or will you be consistent with your errors and suggest it is possible for God to lie by an act of FREE WILL??????

Heb. 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,

 

[Inspector Javert]

9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.

10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Paul said this to a person who tried to turn many away from the truth.

This is evil. ^^
I would say that you are better than this Icon.....
But you have proven time and again that you are not.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I hate to break this to but there is no such thing as a "will" independent of the nature of the being in which the will exists.

I hate to break this to you....but, I already understand the Calvinist position on this....The point is, so does Winman.

If there were, then the will itself would be an independent being.

^^^ That is stupid ^^^

God does not even have a will independent from his own nature which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Him to lie and thus "not wanting" to lie.

duh, tell us something else we don't already know.

 

[The Biblicist]

I hate to break this to you....but, I already understand the Calvinist position on this....The point is, so does Winman.

^^^ That is stupid ^^^

duh, tell us something else we don't already know.

All you are doing is exposing your ignorance and belligerance. God's will is a prisoner to his righteous nature. There is no such thing as a will independent from internal coersion. You are forced to admit this in the case of God who is the creator with ALL POWER and you think that a mere creature has more freedom of will?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Folks....

It's not that we don't UNDERSTAND your Calvinists positions:

It's just that we think it's full of crap!!!

Hey, we understand the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation too:

We just think it's full of crap!!!

 

[Benjamin]

In other words you are as incapable as Winman to give any substantive response and so like him you flee to the only refuge you have - ridicule!

If my seven point response was merely "verbose" then it could be easily shown so by any capable exegete. Since neither have offered any contextual based critique of my exposition then it should be obvious to our readers who is really guilty of "verbose."

I raised one simple issue which you conveniently seem to have forgot/evaded. Thanks for the demonstration of how you can't/or won't follow the issue and proving my prior point.


And you want me to now chase your silly rabbits, again, no thanks.

Edit: BTW, I think it pretty obvious to the honest intelligent readers you tired to cover up and skip past the issue I raised.