Eternal Security the Acid test

[DHK]

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?

You didn't answer my question, which came from your own illustration. In fact, you did your best to avoid it. Here it is again:

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.

DHK, if you do not desire to be associated with Calvinistic theology, you are going to have to distance yourself from its errors.

1. Eternal security does not emanate from Calvin.
2. It doesn't even come from Augustine.
3. If you are going to make unfounded statements like that then you have to back them up. Please provide documentation. Document that those before Calvin did not believe in eternal security. Would you do that for me, so that I know it is not a Calvinistic belief.

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.

Shall I blame the Apostles and Christ himself:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,

 

[The Biblicist]

Let the reader notice how Biblicist chastises others as if though it is just them saying something, and NOT the text........

Go back and read the posts yourself and see if ANY WORD or PHRASE or grammatical or syntactical fact is ever mentioned by these posts!!!!

You just don't like the facts and if a spade is a spade then it is a spade and I just called their posts for what they are and anyone can read them and see if I called them correctly. Prove me wrong, Quote something from Wrenn that is a direct quotation from John 6:36-65 or a reference to any Greek term, grammar, syntactical explanation - just quote one and prove me wrong!

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.

I feel like a teacher who has enterd a classroom of first graders who don't know what two plus two is. I have spelled out in great detail from the actual text the CONTEXTUAL reasons for my position on the term "will" in John 6:38-40. As of this point, YOU or NNE else has even attempted to confront and respond to the contextual evidence I have placed squarely before you SEVERAL times.

If anyone is calling the pot black look at the kettle facing you in your mirror.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 1. Eternal security does not emanate from Calvin.

HP: One thing is for certain, it does no originate in Scripture neither was it taught as doctrine antecedent to Augustine. If you think it was, show us from antiquity who taught any such thing in the church prior to Augustine.

DHK: 2. It doesn't even come from Augustine.

HP: Play the ostrich if you so desire.

DHK: 3. If you are going to make unfounded statements like that then you have to back them up. Please provide documentation. Document that those before Calvin did not believe in eternal security. Would you do that for me, so that I know it is not a Calvinistic belief.

HP: I am under NO obligation to provide evidence from silence, and it is silence on the issue of OSAS prior to Augustine. No such notion was taught or held by the ECF antecedent to Augustine. If you desire to show differently, either produce the evidence or keep quiet. :thumbsAs you desire to put it.)
Quote:
HP: 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.

DHK: Shall I blame the Apostles and Christ himself:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,

HP: Neither of these passages say one thing in support of OSAS nor do they support the 'deterministic' notions that Biblicist is trying so hard to squeeze out of the passage in the OP.

Oh, by the way, don't forget the second half of the Romans 8:1 in the KJV you are so fond of. ......."who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist, you can repeat your same false conclusions a hundred times over and it will not magically produce the truth. Your false assumptions will still be false assumptions based on the presuppositions you bring to the table concerning what constitutes the will of God and how it operates. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, you can repeat your same false conclusions a hundred times over and it will not magically produce the truth. Your false assumptions will still be false assumptions based on the presuppositions you bring to the table concerning what constitutes the will of God and how it operates. :thumbsup:

When you say that I have provided "false assumptions" and "false conclusions" BUT you have not even addressed them at all, nor provided the readers with any kind of rational contextual based response to prove they are false, isn't that outright slander and lying???

I have provided contextual based evidence IN GREAT DETAIL and placed it before you and every reader on this thread knows that. That evidence exposes your response to be FALSE accusations and it has vindicated my position. On the other hand, you are not able to respond with any textual based criticism. Rather you become PERSONAL and make PERSONAL charges that everyone on this thread knows you have not provided a single solitary post to support.

I think that sufficient proves you don't know what you are talking about but are too proud to admit it.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have got to be joking?



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.



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.



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.




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.




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.

Here is the post that HP cannot respond to except by making personal accusations.

 

[DHK]

HP: One thing is for certain, it does no originate in Scripture neither was it taught as doctrine antecedent to Augustine. If you think it was, show us from antiquity who taught any such thing in the church prior to Augustine.

Oh, but it does originate in Scripture. The board's computer program won't allow me enough space to post all the Scripture that relate to eternal security. And I would go beyond the 30 page limit if I started on such a project. So I must decline for the time being.
Scripture is antiquity. But you are making the bold accusations, and constantly so. Don't attribute something to a person unless you can prove it. Since you can't keep quiet about it.

HP: I am under NO obligation to provide evidence from silence, and it is silence on the issue of OSAS prior to Augustine. No such notion was taught or held by the ECF antecedent to Augustine.

An unsubstantiated statement which I will consider a lie, unless you can prove it. That onus falls on you. You made the statement. Prove it.

If you desire to show differently, either produce the evidence or keep quiet. :thumbsAs you desire to put it.)

Why should I believe your lies when you can't prove it.

Pluto is made of green cheese because I said so.
Will you believe me.
Prove me wrong!
That is your MO.

Quote
HP: 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.

John 5:24; Romans 8:1

HP: Neither of these passages say one thing in support of OSAS

nor do they support the 'deterministic' notions that Biblicist is trying so hard to squeeze out of the passage in the OP.

The thread is on eternal security not on Biblicist's beliefs.
Both of those Scriptures support eternal security.

Oh, by the way, don't forget the second half of the Romans 8:1 in the KJV you are so fond of. ......."who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." :thumbs:

1. I left that part off so it wouldn't confuse you, and I wouldn't have to explain how it doesn't affect the first part of the verse.
2. I left that part off because most MSS don't have it anyway.
Either way it doesn't affect the meaning of the first part of the verse. It is simply a red herring on your part.

 

[The Biblicist]

We have sufficiently shut the mouths of those who deny that eternal security is spelled out in no uncertain terms in John 6:36-65 and especially John 6:39.

All that our opponents can do is do what characterizes all false teachers when they cannot respond to Biblical proof. They either change the subject or make personal slanderous accusations.

We have proven that the will of the Father is declared in verse 37.

We have proven that the will of the Father in regard to what is declared in verse 37 is precisely the very assignment Jesus came to fulfill in verse 38

We have proven that the will of the Father first spelled out in verse 37 and reaffirmed by Christ as His own will to perform in verse 37 will be performed by Christ in verse 38 so that "of all" the Father gave NOT ONE shall be lost but EACH ONE shall be raised unto eternal life.

We have shown that the reason those in verse 36 saw Christ but did not believe in Christ was because they were not given to Christ by the Father in verse 37 because ALL that are given by the Father come to the Son in faith and not one fails to come to Christ in faith and they did not.

We have shown that NONE CAN COME to the Son in faith except it "were given unto him of the father" (v. 65) and therefore the Father must give them in order for them to come to him - this is the cause and effect order established in verses 36-38 and our opponents must REVERSE this order to sustain their false doctrine of apostasy and denial of OSAS.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 1. I left that part off so it wouldn't confuse you, and I wouldn't have to explain how it doesn't affect the first part of the verse.

HP: Don't be arrogant and condescending DHK. It serves no purpose. :thumbs:

DHK: 2. I left that part off because most MSS don't have it anyway.

HP: What is this about "most manuscripts???" When I cited a reference (not KJV) without some things in it, with the only purpose just to consider what they said, you told me what? Oh, I remember. Here is what you told me.

DHK: "Yes all of your above translations are, without a doubt, wrong and erroneous. Chuck them out." (EM)

HP: Now what is puzzling to me is why you would now act as if though any other manuscript other than the KJV you are so adamant in support of as being the only real Bible, should even be considered. Following your former advice they all should be chucked out if they differ from you obviously believe is the only inerrant Word of God, all others worthy of being cast aside as rubbish. How dare you tell us that nothing is changed without the last half of the verse, which clearly qualifies the first half.

Here we have a clear sign as to ones real tactics and beliefs. If the KJV can be show to support ones presuppositions, by all means demand that we should chuck all others out.... BUT if the KJV states something that is not in keeping with our presuppositions, we will just say that portion of the KJ can be cast out for our presuppositions will not allow us to consider the effect of the truth of the last half qualifying the first half of the verse for obvious reasons.

If that is not allowing ones presuppositions drive any and all conclusions from Scripture, the Pope is not a Catholic. And that is no red herring.

 

[DHK]

HP: What is this about "most manuscripts???" When I cited a reference (not KJV) without some things in it, with the only purpose just to consider what they said, you told me what? Oh, I remember. Here is what you told me.

HP: Now what is puzzling to me is why you would now act as if though any other manuscript other than the KJV you are so adamant in support of as being the only real Bible, should even be considered. Following your former advice they all should be chucked out if they differ from you obviously believe is the only inerrant Word of God, all others worthy of being cast aside as rubbish. How dare you tell us that nothing is changed without the last half of the verse, which clearly qualifies the first half.

Here we have a clear sign as to ones real tactics and beliefs. If the KJV can be show to support ones presuppositions, by all means demand that we should chuck all others out.... BUT if the KJV states something that is not in keeping with our presuppositions, we will just say that portion of the KJ can be cast out for our presuppositions will not allow us to consider the effect of the truth of the last half qualifying the first half of the verse for obvious reasons.

If that is not allowing ones presuppositions drive any and all conclusions from Scripture, the Pope is not a Catholic. And that is no red herring.

Then disregard the comment.
As I said, the last part of the verse in no way affects the meaning of the first part. And that is my final answer.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You clearly are unable to read English or simply making up things as you go. I am interpreting John 6:39 by its immediate context (vv. 36-65) and challenging you to prove that I am not. Thus far you have not attempted to point out any IMMEDIATE contextual proof, grammar, words, that I am not. Why not try, rather than spout hot empty air???



If I handled this text the way you do than I could prove anything because all you do is simply make an unsupported statement and expect everyone to simply open their mouth and swallow what you say. You do not support your interpretation with anything other than "Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! Find you some worshippers and you will be in business!





"Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! However, Jesus gives as the effectual cause for those coming to him in faith to be "giveth" in verse 37. There are no CONDITIONS set forth in verse 37. They come because they are given and all who given come without exceptions. You reverse this order and make "coming" the condition of being given! Who should we believe? "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" or thus saith Jesus Christ????

You claim that all men are able to come to Christ of their own free will - "Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! But Jesus says "NO MAN CAN come to me EXCEPT...it were given to him of the Father..." (Jn. 6:44,65) and Jesus says "OF ALL" that are given do come and that He shall lose NOTHING of those given (Jn. 6:37,39). Who should we believe? "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" or thus saith Jesus Christ?????

What I have stated is simple enough and evident enough for anyone to understand. I will not descend to your level; it would be a long descent. I have made my point sufficiently with scripture and reason to disprove your house of Calvinist cards, as others here can clearly see.

I suppose you think you can score points by insulting me and maligning me. I'll let the fair-minded people judge who is exhibiting arrogance, ignorance, and the blowing of hot air. In fact, I shall henceforth refer to you as, "Windy". :laugh:

Continue to flail away, flapping your wings and gums.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

Thank you for your kind words, here and elsewhere; I appreciate it very much!

It's easy to see who has the Spirit of Christ, and who does not.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I have stated is simple enough and evident enough for anyone to understand.

I never denied what you said could be understood. What I denied is that you provided any kind of contextual based support from John 6:36-65 to prove it.

I have made my point sufficiently with scripture.....

For example? Where have you even gone to John 6:36-65 and provided a single solitary text, statement, word, grammatical note or any kind of quotation whatsoever???????? This is precisely the hot air I have accused you for - big words with no contextual based evidence!:BangHead:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I never denied what you said could be understood. What I denied is that you provided any kind of contextual based support from John 6:36-65 to prove it.



For example? Where have you even gone to John 6:36-65 and provided a single solitary text, statement, word, grammatical note or any kind of quotation whatsoever???????? This is precisely the hot air I have accused you for - big words with no contextual based evidence!:BangHead:

Carry on; it's clear that you don't think very highly of me.

But that's your prerogative.

 

[The Biblicist]

Carry on; it's clear that you don't think very highly of me.

But that's your prerogative.

It has nothing to do with "you"! It has to do with your obviously false claims.

Anyone can go back to each of your posts and see clearly you offered not one scintillia of contextual evidence from John 6:36-65 in spite of your claims you gave scriptural support for your conclusions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for your kind words, here and elsewhere; I appreciate it very much!

It's easy to see who has the Spirit of Christ, and who does not.

What arrogance! More truthfully it is easy to see who is making false claims, false accusations and who is not.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What arrogance! More truthfully it is easy to see who is making false claims, false accusations and who is not.

It certainly is; on that we can agree!

And it is also easy to see who has personally insulted and personally maligned.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It has nothing to do with "you"! It has to do with your obviously false claims.

Anyone can go back to each of your posts and see clearly you offered not one scintillia of contextual evidence from John 6:36-65 in spite of your claims you gave scriptural support for your conclusions.

I gave scriptural support; it contradicts your fallacies; therefore, you choose to ignore and/or deny it.

Pretty easy to gore that bull. LOL

 

[The Biblicist]

I gave scriptural support; it contradicts your fallacies; therefore, you choose to ignore and/or deny it.

Pretty easy to gore that bull. LOL

Well, just cite ONE post among the many you have made where we can see the scriptural evidence you have provided from John 6:36-65 and you can shut my mouth!!

Surely, it should be easy for you to cite just ONE post?????????

 

[The Biblicist]

I gave scriptural support;

Dear Readers,

Here are all the posts that Michael posted on this thread:

Posts# 7, 11, 38, 39, 73, 105, 107, 129 171, 172, 174, 177, 178

Not a single one of these posts ever provides his readers with any evidence from John 6:37-65 - Not one! The closest he gets to the text is merely making an unsubstaniated statement which I quote:


However, your proof text is easy to interpret. The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end. The end or destiny of those who receive Him and then later turn away from and reject Him, is dealt with in such scriptures as Hebrews 6. John 6:40 further clarifies the proof text which you have so arrogantly used to beat us over the head with (v.39). So, of course Jesus will lose none of those He has been given -- and these consist of the ones who do not fall away. - Post #129

So you be the judge who is telling the truth here. He says he "gave scriptural support" and I say he simply made unsubstantiated comments that included references to scripture but nothing to support or prove his comments.