Eternal Security is NEVER wrong.

Like I predicted my opponents cannot, and I repeat cannot interpret this text according to its immediate context. Your first attempt is lame. Jesus is not speaking about all the other possibilities of God's will but is explicitly telling you exactly what the will of God is about in this text:

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.

The very thing that Christ identifies in this context as the revealed will of His father is the very thing you go outside this context to contradict. What does he say is the Father's will in regard to this context?? "that OF ALL which he hath given me I SHALL LOSE NOTHING". But what do you try to do by going out side the context?? You try to go outside the context and redefine the specific will of God stated here to mean the very OPPOSITE of what he says it is! Thus you are guilty of PITTING scripture against scripture to oppose the very thing the context says is the Father's will.

Apparently you cannot read, right? Before he makes the statement in verse 40 (btw which is contrasted to verse 36) he defines what he means in verse 39 to be the will of God in regard to "OF ALL" that the Father gives him!!!! What is that concerning "OF ALL" given him? Cat bite your tongue? Here let me help you "that I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

Second, that finalized statement is reinforced by the same phrase that concludes verse 40 - or the promise to raise "it" (those he will not lose) up at the last day. Verse 40 simply defines "coming" to Christ as "believing" thus ALL that the father gives comes to Christ - they believe on Christ and "OF ALL" that are given to Christ - believers - NOT ONE ARE LOST.

"Again" you show how eisgesis is done but don't have a clue about exegesis. Giving by the father is stated to be the CAUSE not the consequence of those coming to Christ but your theory reverses the stated cause and effect.

The Father does NOT merely have the express desire to give these to the Son but actual gave them and every one He gave actually come as John 6:37 proves.

The text expressly states the manner in which they come to Christ - THEY ARE GIVEN BY THE FATHER TO COME and ALL DO COME because they are given to come. Can't help if you don't like the way it reads or that it does not fit your soteriology.

Even if you argue it is according to God's prescience, ominiscience that He gave them to the Son - can his omnicience be wrong? No! Therefore any way you look at it ALL given are ALL that come and ALL given NONE are lost unless both God's omnicience and purpose can be wrong?????

 

Yes DW, we all know by now that you cannot read any such text apart from the presupposition of OSAS driving your conclusions. The system of deterministic fatalism you see behind every passage is duly noted. Just remember, when you accept the concept of deterministic fatalism you also must accept the logical consequences of such a failed system of thought. I will do my best as time allows to point out those clear necessitated ends of your theology. :thumbs:

 

Do you beleive that God's omniscience can be wrong? That is what you are forced to beleive if you deny the words "OF ALL that the father gives me I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

In verse 37 Jesus is very explicit that "ALL" not "some" but "ALL" given by the Father do come to Christ. Hence, that is not merely the pleasure of God or His revealed will or his desire but that is a FACT because He says that "ALL" come to Christ.

Like it or lump it you can't deal with it as I asked -by context. Like I predicted you will go outside this context and have to pit scripture against scripure to make this text say the very opposite of what it says and what dose it say, "OF ALL that the Father giveth me that I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

 

HP: Just a note to the reader. More often than not such comments are mere useless rhetoric, serving the same effect as beating on the pulpit. The comment above is clearly no exception.

 

Note: Just a note to the reader. More often than not such comments are mere useless rhetoric and clear indication that the objector is losing the debate. Thus he stoops to personal attach and unsubstantiated statements. He cannot deal with the text in a contextual exegetical manner and both his main arguments are contradicted by the text in clear langauge.

1. Argument #1 this is only the desire of God not His sovereign will - repudiated by verse 37 that says that ALL that come are ALL that are given.

2. Argument #2 the desire of God is all be saved but not all will - repudiated by verse 39 - "OF ALL" given by the father "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING."

3. Argument #3 DW is begging the question by avoiding in what manner they are given - Take your pick, omniscience or eternal purpose - Christ says "ALL" given come - v. 37 - either he is a liar or all given do come. Christ says "OF ALL" that are given "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" - either that is true or Christ is a liar.

This person cannot exegete this context without not merely twisting the text but repudiating the very language.

 

This is like a Jehovah's witness yelling at a Trinitarian, "you cannot read an such text apart from the presupposition of the Trinity driving your conclusions" when in fact the Trinitarian is just faithfully exegeting each text to the discomfort of the JW who cannot respond intelligently.

I do not believe in deterministic fatalism as that is your perverted interpretation of the scriptural truth. Even conditional election repudiates your position.

for example, conditional election states that God looked down into the future and saw who were going to believe in Christ and would be preserved to the end and therefore elected them to believe in Christ and gave them to the Son to be saved. Can God's omniscience be wrong? Can those God foresaw fail to be what God foresaw? So either way, conditional or unconditional your position is proven wrong.

 

DW, the question is not whether or not God knows the future, but whether or not that which He knows is necessitated due to His foreknowledge. I see no distinction between what you have posted so far and the standard Calvinistic determinative model where if in fact God foreknows something to come to pass it must of necessity come to pass. If that is not what you believe, set the record straight. Such a position is simply in error.

 

I do not dictate what the scriptures teach, I simply do my best to correctly interpret it regardless of what may or may not be its conclusion.

You, on the other hand, are married to a presuppostional philosophy that you take with you to the scriptures to make them teach what you want them to teach and that is precisely why you are not able to exegete this or any other section of scripture fairly or rightly that deals with this subject becuase you have already made up your mind about what you are going to believe and not going to believe.

I submitted two exegetical studies unto you at the beginning and asked you to point out any flaws in my exegesis of these without going outside the context or pitting scripture against scripture and you have not been able to do so up to this point. In fact, you have not even tried because you know you cannot or you would.

So, you will stoop to categorizing, name calling and ridicule because you are not a capable exegete or a willing one.

 

HP: And so it clearly does appear to a person such as DW cannot see the unfounded presupposition he read into almost every passage in some manner, the unfounded presupposition of OSAS. It has became so engrained into his thinking that he cannot reason apart from it nor does he comprehend the impact of its ends upon so many of his conclusions.

 

Do you know how the truth is ascertained? It is ascertained by faithful exegesis of any given text. I gave you a general but faithful exegesis of John 6:36-45 and you have not yet been able to point out a single exegetical flaw. You have blathered unsubstantiated accusations, you have tried to categorize my position but you have not found a single solitary exegetical flaw and that speaks volumes of you not me.

Your false interpretations were proven false by the very texts themselves and you believe you have the right to accuse me of distorting the scirptures. I will go verse by verse with you from John 6:36-45 and demonstrate by not leaving the context that your interpretations are false and with ease.

 

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.

 

He certainly is delusional. He has not yet been able or willing to take my challenge.

 

Those who deny salvation by grace (OSAS) build their doctrine upon debatable and obscure texts or upon parables, spiritualizations and thus interpret the clear by the unclear. This is backwards and those who follow such hermeuntical procedures can prove anything they want to prove.

I take the expressly clear and unambigous texts that deal explicitly with the subject of the future of believers and then interpret the unclear and ambiguous by such clear texts that deal specificaly with the issue.

John 6:37-45 is clear and explicit teaching in regard to true believers and their future as that is the very subject being explicitly and clearly discussed by Christ.

 

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.

 

Humility is a fine characteristic. Honesty is another fine characteristic. If a believer has done his homework thoroughly on a given subject and has deep rooted convictions becuase they are founded upon legitimate exegesis of Scripture, then, to act as though he believes he could be wrong in those convictions merely for the sake of appearing humble is hypocrisy. My convictions are based upon many years of applied Bible study, many years of dealing with challenges to my convictions as a Bible teacher and pastor and so I don't flinch on what I know to be truth and I don't merely throw it out as truth without providing arguments based upon contextual exegesis that has formed those conclusions. You may read that as pride whereas I see it as convictions without doubts.