After making the eisegetical comments noted in our previous entry, Hunt writes,
Read the entire text again carefully (John 6:35–65). Christ does not say that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son, will come to Him,and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him; they will all be raised at the last day. Of whom is Christ speaking? We have seen that the Bible teaches that in God ’s foreknowledge He knew who would believe and who would reject the gospel. The former are those whom the Father has given to the Son. There is nothing here about causing a select number to believe unto salvation and choosing not to save the rest of mankind.
What an amazing display of eisegesis! The text provides clear and compelling teaching on the fact that the giving of the Father results in the coming of all of those given to the Son (6:37). If Hunt were to draw his theology from the text (rather than from his traditions), he would have to conclude that the giving of the Father precedes, and hence determines, the coming of any individual to faith in Christ. But he does not derive his theology from the Scriptures in that way. So, he leaps out of John 6, imports an error that he has been corrected on numerous times (but refuses said correction), and as a result turns the text on its head and can conclude that there is nothing about election in the passage. This is tradition at its worst: its power is supreme, and unchallengeable. He continues,
Christ says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him. But He doesn’t say that everyone whom the Father draws actually comes to the Son and is saved. All Scripture testifies to a genuine desire on God’s part for all to be saved. Salvation has been procured by Christ and is genuinely offered to whosoever will believe—but not everyone believes. God’s sincere desire for all to be saved is stated so often and clearly by prophets, Christ, and His apostles that we dare not see a contrary interpretation in this passage.
Once again we encounter the “All Scripture” ploy. When you can’t exegete the text, just claim that “all Scripture” teaches your tradition, and use this to beat the text into submission. Never mind that every single time you are dragged kicking and screaming into any particular text your interpretation is shown to be wrong, you don’t need to worry about particulars like that. Just claim to have dozens and dozens and hundreds and hundreds of verses on your side and all will be well. Dave Hunt cannot show us why, in John 6:44, the one drawn is not the one raised up in every instance. He knows it. But he has chosen to hold to his tradition rather than the Word. It is a sad thing to observe, but he has now proven it in three different books (if you include the second edition as another book). For Hunt, his tradition is final, and hence cannot be questioned, on any basis. And that should sadden us all.