Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

[DHK]

HP: Yes, one thing for starters, i.e., humility. If you believe for a minute that you are above deception, you are deceived. The most heinous crimes ever committed by man have been committed by those believing they could not be 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.

 

[ccrobinson]

...clear indication that the objector is losing the debate.

The objector lost the debate long ago. He's the only one who doesn't realize it. Much like the emperor who thought he was wearing new clothes when he was naked, so does HP think that he has ironclad arguments when all he has is nothing.

 

[John18]

Lets look at something here.When a child does something wrong,they are still the child of their parent(s),that does not change regardless of what they do.The child can choose to do wrong,the child can say that their parent(s) are no longer such but the fact is,they are the child of the parent(s) and they cant change that.

When a person becomes a child of God,they become heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.They are Gods children and will stay Gods children regardless of what they do.This doesnt give the child a free pass to do what they want because they will still have to pay for their wrong but they remain saved.

A person can not keep themselves,a sin is a sin and any sin would cause the person to be out of union with Christ and therefore they would be lost.In this scenario,few if any would go to Heaven because many would not have the chance to renew the union with Jesus before their death.

If a person is going to live by this way of thinking,they most likely will die and miss Heaven,Why?
Because the Bible says that he that knoweth to do good and doesnt,it is sin.

James 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This is something that most of us fail to do every day and if you believe that we keep ourselves,you would have to be lost.

Salvation is an unearned Gift from God,we dont deserve it,wo dont earn it,we dont get it by works and we dont keep it by doing these things either.We are sealed and kept by the Holy Spirit.

Heb.6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

6:5
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance

A person can be and MUST be sure of their salvation in this world,if not;

1 Corinthians 15:19

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

If a person isnt sure of their Salvation in this life,it will be to late in the next life,it is a must to have this settled before you leave this world and you can be sure by accepting the gift of Salvation from God by accepting His only beggoten Son,Jesus Chrsit as your personal Lord and Savior.

I cant say who is or isnt Saved but if a person thinks that that cant know for sure in this life,they are wrong.A person can know if they are saved and the Bible teaches that they can.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.

8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Heavenly, do you struggle thinking you just might be decieved like Judas and feel you can't know if you are one of the elect? Wouldn't you want to know if you have crossed over from death to life? I'm tracing your logic that you pass on to others that they might be decieved like Judas was and can't know for sure if they are born of God. The scriptures very clearly point out that you can know if your in Gods family and not one of the devils own "decieved". It makes no sense for you to proclaim that others are in "error" or believe a "man-made" doctrine or "a lie" with such "conviction" when you are not sure about your own condition. That is indeed being presumptuous.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.............It makes no sense for you to proclaim that others are in "error" or believe a "man-made" doctrine or "a lie" with such "conviction" when you are not sure about your own condition. That is indeed being presumptuous.

GE:
Excellent! Very well stated and clear as daylight!

Take it as a man and find peace for your soul in God's SURE PROMISES.

 

[SavedSinner]

DW, do not forget post 109. It would be advantageous to this discussion to clear up our views on foreknowledge. Ones views on that subject drive many other conclusions. If I have misrepresented your view on foreknowledge in post #109, please clear it up.

DW, Please answer this inquiry. I'm very interested in this discussion. Thanks ahead of time.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, Please answer this inquiry. I'm very interested in this discussion. Thanks ahead of time.

We need to start another thread for this subject as it will entail a discussion all on its own.

However, let me quickly add, whether you interpret "foreknown" as simply prescience - knowing ahead of time OR you interpret "foreknown" as the obvious results of previous purpose it does not help Heavenly with John 6:37-45 at all. So it really plays no part in this interpretation as both views of foreknowledge do not contradict or deny the interpretation of this text that I have given.

The giving by the Father is still the cause and coming to the Son is still the consequence regardless of your view of "foreknowledge" - does not change the outcome one bit. One's view of election, conditional or unconditional does not change the exposition that I have given one iota.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: The giving by the Father is still the cause and coming to the Son is still the consequence regardless of your view of "foreknowledge" - does not change the outcome one bit. One's view of election, conditional or unconditional does not change the exposition that I have given one iota.

HP: I beg your pardon DW, but how one views foreknowledge does in fact have an effect upon ones interpretation and conclusion of the passage John 6 37-45. You have shown that clearly in the deterministic manner you approach this text. You stated concerning those given Christ by God, ”being given is the cause.” Your problem appears to be that you have been so indoctrinated by Calvinism and its dogmas that you cannot apprehend when you apply them to your so-called ‘exegesis.’ Others reading you are not so blinded.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: I beg your pardon DW, but how one views foreknowledge does in fact have an effect upon ones interpretation and conclusion of the passage John 6 37-45. You have shown that clearly in the deterministic manner you approach this text. You stated concerning those given Christ by God, ”being given is the cause.” Your problem appears to be that you have been so indoctrinated by Calvinism and its dogmas that you cannot apprehend when you apply them to your so-called ‘exegesis.’ Others reading you are not so blinded.

My friend, my theological positions do not change syntac and grammar. Regardless of my theological prepositions the language in and of itself demands that coming to Christ is the consequence of being given by the Father. For your position to be true the text would have to say:

"All that come to me shall be given unto me by the Father"

But the text says no such thing, but rather says the reverse. This is not a matter of theologoical presupposition, it is simply a matter of being honest with the syntax and grammar.

 

[DHK]

HP: I beg your pardon DW, but how one views foreknowledge does in fact have an effect upon ones interpretation and conclusion of the passage John 6 37-45. You have shown that clearly in the deterministic manner you approach this text. You stated concerning those given Christ by God, ”being given is the cause.” Your problem appears to be that you have been so indoctrinated by Calvinism and its dogmas that you cannot apprehend when you apply them to your so-called ‘exegesis.’ Others reading you are not so blinded.

The above post casts needless aspersions on Dr. Walters, and re-states your unbliblical philosophy which of course is not true. You sound like a broken record player. When you disagree with someone you call them a Calvinist, whether or not it is true. That is your MO. There is not a person on this forum that has not been referred to as a Calvinist by you.

You refuse to debate the issue. Name-calling seems to be in vogue instead. You too have lost the debate before it has even started.
Go back and read post 121. Better yet I will quote it for you. Then you can take up the challenge.

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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: My friend, my theological positions do not change syntac and grammar. Regardless of my theological prepositions the language in and of itself demands that coming to Christ is the consequence of being given by the Father. For your position to be true the text would have to say:

"All that come to me shall be given unto me by the Father"

But the text says no such thing, but rather says the reverse. This is not a matter of theologoical presupposition, it is simply a matter of being honest with the syntax and grammar.

HP: You would do well to realize that Scripture is no exacting portrait of syntax and grammer according to the rules DW delights in appearing to use when he finds a passage that might just lend itself somewhat freely to his presuppositions, but rather it is a book written in common parlance. Secondly, no Scripture is of private interpretation nor can any Scripture be justly examined apart from the examination of truths that might apply to it whether they be found in other Scriptures, matters of fact, truths of immutable justice or first truths of reason. You are acting as a blind man with his hand on the long skinny tail of an elephant, drawing his conclusions of its size and shape by the limits of that which his hands are currently feeling. You have a severe case of tunnel vision, and that of the Calvinsitic nature.

You seem to know so much about my position, tell us what it is.

I hate to just keep repeating myself, but you consistently beg the question. The real question is not the mere fact that God gives to Christ those that are His, nobody denies that. The real question is rather 'how does God acquire them???' Is it simply Calvinistic and deterministic arbitrary selection, which is the position I read you favoring, or is man truly able to choose this day whom he will serve, voluntarily apart from coercion or force?

Your desired ‘end’ to proper exegesis of this passage by no means beyond just criticism, criticism that I have been careful to point out. What you have been presenting is nothing more or less than old worn out lessons from the pages of Calvinistic playbook with all its necessitated deterministic faults.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

By the way DW, save your 'friend' comments. Your tongue in so many other posts mocks such friendship. Just stick to the discussion. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who siad, when dealing with the Russians, “trust and verify.” It is God that says through Scripture, when it comes to the isue of salvation, have faith, believe, and examine.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You would do well to realize that Scripture is no exacting portrait of syntax and grammer according to the rules DW delights in appearing to use when he finds a passage that might just lend itself somewhat freely to his presuppositions, but rather it is a book written in common parlance. Secondly, no Scripture is of private interpretation nor can any Scripture be justly examined apart from the examination of truths that might apply to it whether they be found in other Scriptures, matters of fact, truths of immutable justice or first truths of reason. You are acting as a blind man with his hand on the long skinny tail of an elephant, drawing his conclusions of its size and shape by the limits of that which his hands are currently feeling. You have a severe case of tunnel vision, and that of the Calvinsitic nature.

You seem to know so much about my position, tell us what it is.

I hate to just keep repeating myself, but you consistently beg the question. The real question is not the mere fact that God gives to Christ those that are His, nobody denies that. The real question is rather 'how does God acquire them???' Is it simply Calvinistic and deterministic arbitrary selection, which is the position I read you favoring, or is man truly able to choose this day whom he will serve, voluntarily apart from coercion or force?

Your desired ‘end’ to proper exegesis of this passage by no means beyond just criticism, criticism that I have been careful to point out. What you have been presenting is nothing more or less than old worn out lessons from the pages of Calvinistic playbook with all its necessitated deterministic faults.

"My friend" is simply a friendly way to address you rather than being unfriendly. However, if you don't want to be addressed in friendly manner so be it.

I have once again laid down the scripture according to what it says and demonstrated how it would have to read to sustain what you believe.

You offer nothing to the conversation but blathering ignorance and accusations. I have answered your question with the context at least on three previous occassions and you simply ignore the Biblical answer derived from the context and so he that will be ignorant let him be ignorant.

 

[DHK]

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who siad, when dealing with the Russians, “trust and verify.” It is God that says through Scripture, when it comes to the isue of salvation, have faith, believe, and examine.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

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.

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.

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

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: "My friend" is simply a friendly way to address you rather than being unfriendly. However, if you don't want to be addressed in friendly manner so be it.

HP: Oh sure DW, call one ‘friend' in one breath but interspersed with heresy/heretic, ( that in reality is really just another way of saying I hope you burn in hell) or accusing myself and others of calling God a liar. You can save your feigned “friend” remarks when it comes to this listener. No sense of typing something that is a blatant untruth.

 

[DHK]

HP: Oh sure DW, call one ‘friend' in one breath but interspersed with heresy/heretic, ( that in reality is really just another way of saying I hope you burn in hell) or accusing myself and others of calling God a liar. You can save your feigned “friend” remarks when it comes to this listener. No sense of typing something that is a blatant untruth.

Heresy is heresy and needs to be confronted. It doesn't matter who speaks it or in what flowery language it may be disguised. If you can point to the one who was flat out called a heretic, than do so and I will edit it.
In the meantime answer the post that I have three times posted for you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In John 6:39,40 and 44 there is the same essential phrase that concludes each of these verses "but should raise it up again at the last day.

The first time Jesus uses it is in verse 39 is to REAFFIRM the phrase "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" but instead of suffering any loss "but should raise it up again at the last day." Here he plainly teaches that "OF ALL" that come to Christ all shall be raised up to the resurrection of life so that I SHALL LOSE NOTHING.

The second time Jesus uses it is in verse 40 to REAFFIRM the phrase "may have everlasting life" and therefore "and I will raise him up at the last day" to the resurrection of life demanding again as first used "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

The third time Jesus uses it is in verse 44 to REAFFIRM the phrase "except the Father which hath sent me draw him:" and then to REAFFIRM "him" being drawn SHALL NOT BE LOST he immediately says for the third time, and I will raise him up at the last day..

Verse 45 again demonstrates that "ALL" who are under consideration by the prophet shall be taught of God and thus "EVERYONE" having heard and learned in this teaching session "shall come to me"

Therefore, these three Affirmations in verses 39,40,and 44 demonstrate that it is the same "him" under consideration in all three verses and therefore "OF ALL" that the Father gives and draws come to Christ and "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" is reaffirmed by the promise of resurrection to eternal life to these regarded individually "him."

Finally, in John 6:65 Jesus intentionally refers the audiance back to his words in John 6:44 but changes the word "draw" to the phrase "given unto HIM of my Father" to show that saving faith that is missing in those in verse 64 must be "given" by the Father or they cannot come to him as TRUE BELIEVERS.

 

[Jedi Knight]

"I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" but instead of suffering any loss "but should raise it up again at the last day." Here he plainly teaches that "OF ALL" that come to Christ all shall be raised up to the resurrection of life so that I SHALL LOSE NOTHING.

Ummmmm......maybe they can fall through the cracks?

 

[ccrobinson]

HP, seriously, it's long past time for you to meet the challenge and exegete Scripture. You're embarrassing yourself. Time to put up or shut up.