Featured Eternal Security the Acid test

No, this text is not about Jesus losing "any body." This text is explicitly about Christ not losing one single person that comes to him, which is every single person the Father gave him! That is precisely what John 6:37 and John 6:39 explicitly state.

This text has nothing to do with "any body" the Father did not give to him. This text has nothing to do with "any body" that never came to him. This text is a flat denial that a single solitary person given to the Son by the Father will fail to come to him. This text is a flat denial that a single solitary person that comes to the Son will ever be lost by the Son. This text is a flat assertiont that every single person that comes to the Son will be raised up to the resurrection of eternal life.

 

Deal with the text! Why should I go jumping around the Bible from text to text when you are simply doing Proof texting without demonstrating your proof text is not simply jerked out of context?

I am dealing with the text (Jn. 6:39) in its immediate context and what it explicitly states is confirmed by its context.

 

Deal with the Biblical text in its context. Your philosophizing means nothing!

 

Deal with the text in its context or you really have nothing to offer this conversation.

 

For instance? Show me where my exposition under "A,B, or C" where I used language with faulty reasoning???

That is precisely what the text explicitly states (Jn. 6:39).

You are not contradicting the plain language of the text. The reason they come to Christ is because they are first given by the Father as Jesus later says that it is "given to him of the Father" (Jn. 6:65). The text says nothing about persevering to the end or choosing to perserve - not one word, not one syllable. Stick with the text and its immediate context.

You are accusing Christ of "fatalistic determinism" because I made absolutely no personal comments on that point - I simply quoted Christ's words.

The text does not deal with the issue of freedom does it? Deal with the text. Indeed, the overal context in regard to coming to Christ denies such are free to come to Christ by the words "NO MAN CAN come to me EXCEPT the Father draw him" ( Jn. 6:44) and "except it were GIVEN UNTO HIM of the Father" (Jn. 6:65).

Indeed, you are purely and simply ignorant of what you are talking about. You are not only READING INTO the text and context what is not there but you are totally ignoring the distinction between a prefallen human condition and a post-fallen human condition and they are not equal.

I dare you to be honest and objective enough to simply deal with the text.

 

I am trying to avoid the very thing you are doing. Why? Because when you start jumping here and there, it becomes an endless merry-go-round.

The problem with these fella's is that they only respond through "proof texts" which are never addressed in context. I am throwing a proof text (Jn. 6:39) but I am also willing and able to deal with it in its context. Until we do that first, there is no sense in just jumping to another text because once you begin that, there is no end of it.

That is precisely what they want to do - keep jumping from text to text and NEVER DEAL WITH ANY TEXT IN ITS CONTEXT. If we start with one text and pin their tails down to ONE TEXT and deal with it in its context before jumping to another, we will expose their ignorant use of proof texts.

Didn't mean to offend you.

Everyone so far has fled as fast they can from this text in its context. Not one is willing to demonstrate that I am wrong by sound exegesis and why should I follow them to another text and another when they are going to do the very same thing over and over and over without EVER dealing with any text in its context??

 

Are you honest and able to deal with a text in its context in a scholarly manner? Or are you going to be like the rest and run as fast as you can to another proof text or to philosophizing?

Can we get anyone to show some expository scholarship on this forum and deal with a text in its context in order to prove your point????

 

Gentleman,

Here is the problem as I see it. None of you want to properly deal with this text in its immediate context. You either want to merely jump to a Proof Text to avoid dealing with this text in its context (BTW avoid dealing with your proof text in its context as well) or you want to philosophize. Nothing can be accomplished by following your method.

Prove that my interpretation of this text (Jn. 6:39) is contrary to what it explicitly says or contrary to its immediate context. Once that you shut my mouth or I shut your mouth on this text, then, I would love to jump over to another text and do the same with that text in its context.

Why? Because, I believe that you are wrong and the reason you are wrong is because you simply quote proof texts without examining the context of your proof text. I believe if we examine the context one by one your error will expose itself. I am willing to take what I give out but are you?

 

This is circular reasoning! You are first ASSUMING that Satan and the angels had a position of salvation and then chose to fall. They never were saved and therefore never fell from salvation.

You are assuming Judas was genuinely saved when in fact, Christ who knows the heart said he never really beleived in him at all but made a false profession (Jn. 6:64-65, 70) and therefore was a demon from the beginning.

More importantly, you will not even address the text I presented or its context in any expository manner. You want to by pass the text of the OP and go to another text. However, this is the text presented in the OP. Will you address it in an expository manner?