Being Given the Necessary Condition for coming

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Dec 3, 2013.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Jn. 6:39 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.

    Note what this text does not say. It does not say:

    "of all who cometh to me I should lose nothing"

    If Christ would have said that then our Arminian friends would be crowing that this text makes coming the necessary condition for security. However, Christ asserts that being "given" is the necessary condition for security because coming is the consequence not the cause for being given by the Father. It is the Father's work and the Father's will that is the subject while the action of coming is the consequence of that work not its cause.

    The grammar demands this as coming is future tense "shall" from being given. Being given PRECEDES Christ coming to earth as His coming to earth was in response to those "GIVEN" by the Father unto a specified end "LOSE NONE." Hence, the coming of Christ is FUTURE to being given.

    Common sense demands this because if anyone could come to Christ WITHOUT BEING GIVEN then either NONE should be given by the Father or ALL without exception should be given by the Father as being given is of no consequence if anyone can come to Christ whether they are given or not.

    Hence, being given is the NECESSARY CONDITION for Christ coming to fulfill that will of Purpose as it is the NECESSARY CONDITION for "all" who do come to Christ for that expressed will of purpose.

    Moreover, that NONE exterior to that "all" have that stated will of purpose for God giving them to the son is the clearest expression of being chosen by the Father to be given to the Son for that very design and thus they were "chosen TO salvation" rather than "chosen BECAUSE of salvation" due to prescience.

    John 6:37-40 define the WHO which will EFFECTUALLY come whereas John 6:44-45 define the HOW they will EFFECTUALLY come and John 6:64-65 PROVES SOME ARE NOT TO BE FOUND in the "all" of John 6:37-39 or the "all" of John 6:45a or John 12:32 as these unbelievers were not "given" the ability to come to Christ (believe).
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Or we could go with "whom He FOREKNEW He predestined" as the "given".

    This appears to be an OSAS thread.

    So then Matt 18 and Matt 6 come to mind as quick examples of the failure of that idea.

    Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

    [FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]



    Matt 6

    12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
    13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
    14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

    15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #2 BobRyan, Dec 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2013
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    Notice that Bob CANNOT deal with ANY contextual based evidence I presented - NADA- NOTHING - ZIP!

    So he does the classic eisgetical false teacher RJP response. He RUNS from the text, the presented contextual based evidence, JUMPS into other texts and does the classic cultic PIT scripture against scripture.

    He does this routinue and INTENTIONALLY because he is simply not qualified to deal with the data presented and knows it would be to his utter detriment to even attempt as it would expose him for what he is and for what his methods of interpretation are.

    Moreover, before the red herring statement occurs in this thread, that is repeated in other threads to simply derail the thread, let it be acknowledge that I nor any other person on this forum who holds my position has ever said that the words "All that the father draws will come to me" are found in scripture. However, the idea is taught and it is taught in verses 37-39 and the evidence has been presented. Indeed, verses 44-45 merely explains why "all" given do in fact come to Christ and NONE are lost in verses 37-39. Indeed, without verses 44-45 there would be no contextual explanation as to HOW 100% "of all" given equal "all" that come equal nothing lost, becuase the work of the Father is not only giving those to Christ whom He will save but it is the work of the Father that obtains them coming to Christ they might be saved.

    So, lets ignore him because he ignores the OP and the evidence presented. When he can come back and deal with the OP objectively and honestly and straightforwardly I will deal with his posts.
     
    #3 The Biblicist, Dec 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2013
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sadly you introduce a subject and then run from it when it is shown that Calvinist-debunking texts exist on that same subject in scripture.

    Your hollow response is that you do not want to look at the subject in your own OP if we are willing to include "more Bible" than you wish to spin-backwards in the discussion of that very same subject matter.

    And you think that flies??

    With me? With you? who buys it??

    Do you really think that even your own fellow Calvinists will be snookered by such arguments in all cases. I can think of a few that will not.

    The only way Calvinism survives the inconvenient details on the subjects that it raises - is by ignoring them.

    As already pointed out "ALL" are drawn John 12:32 - but those GIVEN are in the class
    "whom He FOREKNEW He predestined" as the "given".

    A "Bible detail" you carefully avoid to make it appear that the Calvinist argument survives it.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #4 BobRyan, Dec 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2013
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    204
    No competent bible expositor RUNS from a text first in order to deal with it! However, that is your ROUTINE. You can't debunk the OP without RUNNING from it and JUMPING to another text for the sole purpose to PIT one scripture against another.

    On the other hand, if you had the competency to do what any good Bible teacher ALWAYS DOES FIRST and that is examine the text on the merits of its immediate context, grammar, and words then you would have the proper basis to then move outside the text to supporting texts. However, you CAN'T do that becuase if you were bold enough to FIRST enter into the discussion of the immediate contextual factors it would expose your views as complete errors and that is precisely why you RUN FIRST and always RUN FIRST. This RUN FIRST type of mentality is the exact mentality used by all cults and false teachers.

    I don't expect you to act alike a competent Bible teacher because you embrace so much false doctrine that can only be defended by the RJP method that if you don't RUN FIRST you will be exposed for what you are and what you teach.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    But sadly for your argument - your OP says that "Being given is the necessary condition for coming to Christ".

    Which is nowhere to be found except in your "quote of you".

    Just like at other times you wanted to use John 6 as the place to find "ALL who are DRAWN will come to Christ" -- and there again we find a key principle in OSAS that is not found in the text of John 6 except in your "Quote of you".

    Surely that practice ends some time.

    And of course your last sentence in your own post as quoted above - refutes the entire title of this thread.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #6 BobRyan, Dec 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2013
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    1. OSAS only makes its case by "inference" and redefining/downsizing terms to fit Calvinism -- never by the direct statements in scripture. For that reason when a claim is made by "inference" from one text we look for where the idea is "bounded" in other texts rather than letting the inference-machine that is Calvinism just run wild with the text taking it to extremes that are not actually found in the wording of the actual text.

    2. EVERY Bible student knows that exegesis of a given subject matter - is not isolated to a single verse but rather the text and the others that speak to the same subject.

    this is just not that hard to get.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...