• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Eternal Security the Acid test

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaChaser1

New Member


HP: Excellent observation! What we are witnessing is pure Calvinism in its purest state of fatalism. Whether Biblicist wants to or not, when he approaches the text in the OP from a purely necessitated Calvinistic manner, he is addressing the issue of the will, like it or not.

Here Biblicist demonstrates to a tee the nonsense of Calvinism and its often touted freedom of the will, that in reality is NO freedom at all. The will, according to Biblicist, can ONLY EXPRESS THE MOTIVES AND DESIRES OF THE HEART. The will is bound by necessity to only one direction of action or intent. Mark it down clear in your mind. There is not the least shred of freedom in such a remark. The will is only free if it an choose something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances. There is no choice at all if the will has no other possibility other than to act in a singular fashion, in this case sin and that continually. If there is only one possible consequent to a given antecedent, no freedom or choice can in any way be associated with such necessity. Simple common sense tells us that intuitively. To speak of freedom or choice as Biblicist does (and to be fair all Calvinists, and even those leaning hard towards Calvinism do the same thing) is pure unadulterated chicanery, sophistic deception. The freedom and choice they speak of is of the same kind and nature a dead tree branch exhibits when it 'freely chooses' to fall from the tree. :rolleyes:

I take from this that you both deny that man has become spiritually dead from the fall, and deny that we no longer have libertine free will any more?
 
Biblicist: What a joke! I will give cudo's to HP for at least attempting to ask questions relative to the text and context. However, Michael's posts are pure philophizing without a shred of contextual substance offered to back up pure opinion. Just "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" period!

HP: Wisdom and understanding are the most important matters, and Michael Wrenn has clearly demonstrated he has found them. :thumbs:

Pro 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Pro 4:8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.
Pro 4:9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DaChaser1

New Member
Do you freely choose to fall from the tree?
As for me, I know that my life is secure in the hand of Jesus, and it is He that will never allow me to fall from the tree.

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Would see it more like the pig returns to the mud/mire, while the saint can fall into the mud hole, but will try to climb back out of it!
 
DC1: I take from this that you both deny that man has become spiritually dead from the fall, and deny that we no longer have libertine free will any more?

HP: What is this nonsense of 'libertine free will?" Either the will is free or it is not.
 

DaChaser1

New Member

HP: What is this nonsense of 'libertine free will?" Either the will is free or it is not.

can you do ANYTHING outside of either Gods determined or permissive Will?

Just saying here that ONLY God has free will in absolute sense, as he can dtermine the decision of any other being IF He so desired!

or do you hold that we have same type/kind of free will as Adam/Eve had from God before the fall?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter


HP: Excellent observation! What we are witnessing is pure Calvinism in its purest state of fatalism. Whether Biblicist wants to or not, when he approaches the text in the OP from a purely necessitated Calvinistic manner, he is addressing the issue of the will, like it or not.

Here Biblicist demonstrates to a tee the nonsense of Calvinism and its often touted freedom of the will, that in reality is NO freedom at all. The will, according to Biblicist, can ONLY EXPRESS THE MOTIVES AND DESIRES OF THE HEART. The will is bound by necessity to only one direction of action or intent. Mark it down clear in your mind. There is not the least shred of freedom in such a remark. The will is only free if it an choose something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances. There is no choice at all if the will has no other possibility other than to act in a singular fashion, in this case sin and that continually. If there is only one possible consequent to a given antecedent, no freedom or choice can in any way be associated with such necessity. Simple common sense tells us that intuitively. To speak of freedom or choice as Biblicist does (and to be fair all Calvinists, and even those leaning hard towards Calvinism do the same thing) is pure unadulterated chicanery, sophistic deception. The freedom and choice they speak of is of the same kind and nature a dead tree branch exhibits when it 'freely chooses' to fall from the tree. :rolleyes:

Like I told another poster if you want to debate the human will then start your own thread. Otherwise stick to the OP.

As I said, I will give you cudo's for at least making an attempt at the text whereas Wrenn does not even support a single word he says from the text.

I have responded to your post in regard to the comments you made about the text so respond to mine if you are able.
 

DHK: Do you freely choose to fall from the tree?
As for me, I know that my life is secure in the hand of Jesus, and it is He that will never allow me to fall from the tree.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


HP: Here is the rub. There are only two paths of thought one can take. Either one will take the path of necessity, or one will take the path of freedom. When one chooses to place themselves on the path of necessity, he chooses by default who his fathers are. Should it be so strange when others, looking upon the path one has set his sails to follow, from taking notice of which path one is on and what system of theology is bent on sailing the same course?

DHK, if you do not desire to be associated with Calvinistic theology, you are going to have to distance yourself from its errors. When you espouse the same foundational error, or show affinity for the same necessitated ends, you can blame no one but yourself for being associated with others on the same basic path of necessitated fatalism that Calvinism imbibs.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Biblicist, if I called or referred to you as a Calvinist, would you take offense, why or why not?

What is very amusing to me is that you call me a Calvinist when I simply expound what the texts actually says and I stick to the actual language and grammar and syntax and that is sufficient for you to call me a Calvinist!!!

If you challenge that, then I dare you to point out one single statement in my exposition that is not grounded upon either terms, grammar or syntactical relationships actually found in John 6:36-65? Go for it!
 
DaChaser1: Just saying here that ONLY God has free will in absolute sense, as he can determine the decision of any other being IF He so desired!

or do you hold that we have same type/kind of free will as Adam/Eve had from God before the fall?
HP: Biblicist needs to understand that the issue of freewill is directly connected to this topic, and as such a minor diversion such as a brief discussion of freewill in his eyes should not be grounds to eliminate it from this discussion when it arises. He only would need to go back to some of the other threads by others and see his own actions to see his need for toleration on this matter. If he thinks we are going to run out of room to continue this thread if it comes to that, rest assured the internet has plenty of room to expand this discussion to part2.:thumbs:

DC1, define for us freewill as you see it, and distinguish that from what you denote as 'libertine freewill'. Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HP: Biblicist needs to understand that the issue of freewill is directly connected to this topic, and as such a minor diversion such as a brief discussion of freewill in his eyes should not be grounds to eliminate it from this discussion when it arises.


It is your characteritic that when you cannot deal with proper exposition of a text that you always change the subject. That is what you did with the debate on the term "good" in Matthew 19:17 and that is precisely what you are trying to do here.

I have responded to your attempts to prove that I assumed both "means" and "manner" in John 6:39. Now, can you respond or not?
 
Biblicist, I have pointed out what I see as the error in your interpretation of the text in connection with the presuppositions you bring into that text which drive your conclusions, recognized as such by yourself or not.

I simply wanted to get your reaction to being called a Calvinist. I for one have never called you a Calvinist, but simply have shown the clear agreement between what you espouse and the position clearly known and understood as at one with the system of Calvinism. Would you be offended if I did in fact call you a Calvinist, and if so why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The means is stated "giveth to me" - GIVING by the Father to the Son is the stated means how they are aquired by the Son. Furthermore it is an EFFECTUAL MEANS because all that are given do come and none are lost.

So you are wrong! I have not assumed without proof the means.

The manner is also clearly stated "cometh to me"! In context the manner is defined as "believing" in Christ as "cometh" and "believing are synonmous.

So you are wrong! I have not assumed without proof the means.

The means of believing is also stated in the context "No man can come EXCEPT THE FATHER DRAW HIM...except it were given unto him of the Father" (Jn. 6:44,65).

Furthermore, the means for believing/coming is EFFECTUAL as all who are given come and none are lost that come (v. 39) BUT each one is raised up to the resurrection of life (vv. 39,40,44).



False again! Determination cannot be more forcefully stated than it is in verses 37-39.


Both the Father and Son have stated their determined will in verse 37. All given EQUALS All that come EQUALS none cast out - that is effectual determination stated clearly and explicity by both the Father and the Son in regard to their own commited actions. They come because they are given - (determinate cause - the Father - determinate means "giveth" determinate manner "cometh" and determinate consequence "I will not cast out").

Verse 38 expresses the determinate will of the Son. The Son NEVER FAILED to do the will of the Father - therefore verse 38 expresses the determinate will of the Son which is always effectual - "I always do that which pleases the Father" and he NEVER ONCE failed to carry out the will of the Father.

Verse 39 expresses the determinate will of the Father as stated in verse 37. In verse 37 the Father's determinate will has been stated as it is not stated with any conditions whatsoever, but unconditionally stated and effectual as all given do in fact come. Nothing can express the UNCONDITIONAL will of the Father more than the language in verse 37.

Thus verse 39 simply summarizes verse 37 which is the determinate will of the Son in verse 38 thus making verse 39 the determinate will of the Father joined with the determinate will of the Son "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 position necessarly rejects verse 37 by reversing the Biblical cause [giveth] and effect [cometh] relationship stated by Christ by making "cometh" the logical cause for being given, even though verses 44 and 65 confirms that no man can come to Christ except it is "given unto him of the Father" and thus drawn by the Father. So the immediate context repudiates your reversal of the stated cause and effect. Your position takes the UNCONDITIONAL STATED acts of God in verse 37 and forces it to be a CONDITIONAL act of God.


CONCLUSION:

So I have not assumed the means but it is clearly stated to be the Father GIVING.

I have not assumed the manner but it is clearly stated "cometh" AS CONSEQUENTIAL to being given.

I have not assumed the Will of the Father is determinate but that is explicitly stated in verse 37 in unconditional determinate effectual langauge. There is no language of condition as "All the Father gives me IF..." It is restated in verse 38 as the Son NEVER FAILS to carry out His Father's will and then it is restated including both the determinate will of the Father and Son in verse 39 guaranteeing the effectual outcome in the resurrection. Hence, the context demands it is the determinate will of God.

However, your position not only reverses the stated cause and effects in verse 37 but reverses verse 37 from an UNCONDITIONED statement to a CONDITIONAL statement.

We have already discussed the will on another thread. Get back to the OP. This OP has to do with the proper contextual interpretation of John 6:39. Prove I have interpreted John 6:39 contrary to its immediate context (Jn. 6:36-65).

I have answered your objections above. Can you respond or do you throw in the towel and/or try to change the subject??????
 
DC1: Would you get offended if called you an Arminian in theology?

HP: Just do not call me late for supper. :thumbs:

Seriously, you would not offend me but you might offend a true Arminian by associating me with their camp.:thumbsup:
 
Get serious Biblicist. What towel? I am not the one that mentioned freewill. It was YOUR POST concerning it that I responded to. Relax. Take a deep breath. :thumbs:
 
Biblicist: CONCLUSION:

So I have not assumed the means but it is clearly stated to be the Father GIVING.

I have not assumed the manner but it is clearly stated "cometh" AS CONSEQUENTIAL to being given.

I have not assumed the Will of the Father is determinate but that is explicitly stated in verse 37 in unconditional determinate effectual langauge. There is no language of condition as "All the Father gives me IF..." It is restated in verse 38 as the Son NEVER FAILS to carry out His Father's will and then it is restated including both the determinate will of the Father and Son in verse 39 guaranteeing the effectual outcome in the resurrection. Hence, the context demands it is the determinate will of God.

However, your position not only reverses the stated cause and effects in verse 37 but reverses verse 37 from an UNCONDITIONED statement to a CONDITIONAL statement.



HP: You really want another response to the same points? OK, here it goes.

You have indeed assumed without proof the means by which the Father gives.
You have indeed assumed without proof the manner one 'cometh' to the father.
You have assumed without proof that the word 'cometh' demands the necessitated action you say it does.
You have indeed assumed without proof that the' will of the Father' is determinate in that it alone 'determines' the outcome of who comes and who and how one is kept by the Father.

IN REALITY, it is NOT context that drives any of your conclusions, but rather you are bringing to the text presuppositions driving your conclusions, or 'reasoning in a circle' as it is commonly called.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Get serious Biblicist. What towel? I am not the one that mentioned freewill. It was YOUR POST concerning it that I responded to. Relax. Take a deep breath. :thumbs:

No, I was asking the poster to get back to the OP rather than derail it to another subject just like you are attempting to do.

I have now challenged you three times to respond to my post! Can you? Will you? or do you throw in the towel?
 
Let the reader notice how Biblicist chastises others as if though it is just them saying something, and NOT the text........YET Biblicist demands how we are to understand the word 'will' of the Father. It is Biblicist that is guilty of demanding that it must be so, because HE demands it to be so, to support his conclusions. Hmmmmm.

What pot is calling which kettle black? :rolleyes:
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have got to be joking?




HP: You really want another response to the same points? OK, here it goes.

You have indeed assumed without proof the means by which the Father gives.

Giving is the stated means for coming and you cannot deny it! However, what you want to do is REVERSE the order and make coming the means for giving and YOU KNOW IT! Hence, Christ condemns your very eisgetical MO.

So your objection is absolutely condemned by the very text itself.

You have indeed assumed without proof the manner one 'cometh' to the father.

Coming IS the manner and the coming is not "to the Father" but to the Son. Again, you are attempting to REVERSE the cause and effects explicitly stated. Your question is foolish as it is a denial of the very manner that is being explicitly defined by Christ.

You have assumed without proof that the word 'cometh' demands the necessitated action you say it does.

John 6:37 demands it is a necessitated act for several reasons.

1. It is presented by Christ as a statement of fact
2. It is presented by Christ without conditions

John 6:38 demands it is a necessitated act

1. Verse 37 is presented as the will that Christ was sent by the Father to do
2. Christ NEVER failed to do what the Father sent him to do as that would be "sin" or MISSING THE MARK.

John 6:39 demands it is a necessitated act

1. If it were not then Christ could not say "OF ALL that the Father hath given me I SHALL LOSE NOTHING.

2. Something contingent upon what neither the Son or Father controls would prohibit Christ from saying "OF ALL...I shall lose nothing" and "but should raise it up at the last day."

3. Your position would prohibit Christ from saying "OF ALL...I shall lose nothing" because you believe that many who come shall be lost and shall not be raised up to eternal life at the last day.

4. These are not conditional statements but declarative statements.

5. These statements are not dependent upon the will of man or the actions of man but on the will of the Father and the actions of the Son.


You have indeed assumed without proof that the' will of the Father' is determinate in that it alone 'determines' the outcome of who comes and who and how one is kept by the Father.

1. The text does not restrict it solely to the will of the father but to the will of the Son as well - "I WILL in now wise cast him out.....I SHALL LOSE NOTHING"

2. The text includes the willingness and ability of the Son to accomplish the Father's will - v. 37 "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

3. The text depends upon the ability and veracity of the Son of God to do the Father's will and the veracity of his promise - "I came...to do....the will of him....I shall lose nothing but raise it up again at the last day."

I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.


IN REALITY, it is NOT context that drives any of your conclusions, but rather you are bringing to the text presuppositions driving your conclusions, or 'reasoning in a circle' as it is commonly called.

You are the one guilty of this very charge of "reasoning in a circle" and reading into the text what is not there. You know very well you are trying to reverse the order given in the text so that coming to Christ is the cause for giving by the Father when the text says the very opposite!

You are trying to READ INTO THE TEXT conditions when no conditions are provided but rather what is provided are DECLARATIONS according to a stated cause and effect order determined by the Father.

You are trying to make this text read and thus mean the very reverse of what it says:

"All that chooseth to come unto me the Father will give to me and he that remains with me I shall in now wise cast out."

But it does not say that! It says the very reverse. They come becuase they are given and ALL that are given do ALL come and none shall be lost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top