Featured John:6:38-39

Jn. 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
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.

1. In the underlined portion of verse 38 Jesus is claiming he came down from heaven specifically to do the Father's will. The specific aspect of the Father's will he came down to do, is then explicitly stated in verse 39 "that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing"

2. Does not this demand the Father had to have given this "ALL" prior to the incarnation or else how could Christ claim it is this aspect of the Father's will he came down to perform??

3. Does not the Perfect tense verb "given" also give support this act of giving was a completed action prior to the incarnation?

4. Since the "ALL" having been given is the stated specific intent for Christ coming to earth, then does not that demand that both were part of God's eternal purpose of salvation prior to the incarnation, prior to the foundation of the world that Christ came to fulfill?

5. Since Christ came to secure the salvation of "all" given, and the given had to occur prior to Christ's coming, does not that prove that both were part of the eternal purpose by God before the world began and the "given" are synonymous with the "chosen" to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) before the world? If not, then who else but those "given" actually do come to Christ other than those "chosen to salvation" before the world began??????

6. How can it be possible to "give" a specific number "OF ALL" to Christ if the Father never first chose them to give to the Son?????? How could he give what he never chose or selected, since the given constitute "ALL" given equal all coming equals "OF ALL" actually finally saved??? How is it possible for the Father to "give" a specific people the Father never first chose to give to the Son?

 

What is "silly" is your response. I presented a series of contextual based facts. You responded by simply ignoring the points listed. Why? Is it because you can't answer them? Try refuting each point based upon what the text says or does not say.

What if we answered your presentation after the same manner you answered this?? You talk about "silly" any fool can give the answer you gave to overthrow anything anyone chose to write about. However, is it even possible that you can drop the nonsense and enter into a substantive debate. If so, then I would love to have a serious discussion with you. But the way you are responding, it is impossible to have any serious discussion. All have said above is "I don't believe that" and then mocked what I said, without giving any substantive reasons from the very text being discussed?

 

1. In the underlined portion of verse 38 Jesus is claiming he came down from heaven specifically to do the Father's will. The specific aspect of the Father's will he came down to do, is then explicitly stated in verse 39 "that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing"


If you disagree with anything stated in point number 1, please point out the precise statement you disagree with and then support your disagreement by something in verse 38-39 that gives your disagreement credibility.

 

2. Does not this demand the Father had to have given this "ALL" prior to the incarnation or else how could Christ claim it is this aspect of the Father's will he came down to perform??

3. Does not the Perfect tense verb "given" also give support this act of giving was a completed action prior to the incarnation?

Point three gives susbstantive contextual based validity to point two. If you disagree with these two points, please provide anything in the text from which I drew these two points that would contradict my conclusions.

 

4. Since the "ALL" having been given is the stated specific intent for Christ coming to earth, then does not that demand that both were part of God's eternal purpose of salvation prior to the incarnation, prior to the foundation of the world that Christ came to fulfill?

1. Is it, or is it not the clear express stated intent of Christ in verse 38-39 that he left heaven and came to earth to secure the final salvation of all that had been given to him by the Father? If you disagree with this, then please point anything out in verses 38-39 that would support your disagreement?

2. If his stated intent for coming to earth is to secure the salvation "of all" that the Father hath "given" (Perfect tense) does not that this prove that the Father had "given" them prior to Christ coming to earth? If not then how could it be Christ's stated intent for coming to earth to secure all the Father had "given" him? If you disagree, point out anything in verses 38-39 that would support your disagreement.

 

5. Since Christ came to secure the salvation of "all" given, and the given had to occur prior to Christ's coming, does not that prove that both were part of the eternal purpose by God before the world began and the "given" are synonymous with the "chosen" to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) before the world? If not, then who else but those "given" actually do come to Christ other than those "chosen to salvation" before the world began??????

Giving had to occur prior to the incarnation, since the incarnation is given as a consequence of performing the Father's will in specifically securing the salvation "of all" that had been already "given" (Perfect tense) to him? If you disagree with this then please explain how Christ could give the incarnation as a result of coming to secure the salvation of those not yet given until after his incarnation???

 

6. How can it be possible to "give" a specific number "OF ALL" to Christ if the Father never first chose them to give to the Son?????? How could he give what he never chose or selected, since the given constitute "ALL" given equal all coming equals "OF ALL" actually finally saved??? How is it possible for the Father to "give" a specific people the Father never first chose to give to the Son?

If you disagree with this point, please explain to the readers how God could give anyone to Christ he has not first chosen to give to Christ?

If you disagree with this point, please explain to the readers how God could given anyone to Christ BEFORE the incarnation ("given" perfect tense) that was not also given to him before the world began in God's purpose of salvation????

 

The problem is that you use your interpretation of the overall context to contradict the very meaning of the texts. Moreover, the overall context has NOTHING to change anything I stated. It does not change the fact that the stated purpose of Christ's coming to earth was to secure "ALL" being formerly given to him prior to his coming. Common sense will dictate that you cannot give something as the purpose for coming which an interpretation of the context ultimately will demand is the consequence of his coming. So your argument does not change a thing about what I have stated.

For example, your argument about the overall context does not change anything regarding the perfect tense "given" which is found in its immediate context with His coming. It proves that the "given" occurred prior to His coming.

For example, your argument about the overall context does not change anything about the fact that the Father could not possibly have "given" them to Christ prior to Christ's coming without first CHOOSING to give them to him.

Now, lets consider your overall contextual argument. I certainly do not deny anything about the overall context especially John 6:29. However, you are interpreting it exactly opposite to the whole following context.

For example, in verse 37-40 only those chosen come to Christ in faith. None outside "of all" given come to Christ. Grammatically giving precedes "shall come".

For example, verse 44 says "NO MAN CAN COME to me" and yet you interpret verse 29 to mean the very opposite ("This is the one thing, the one "work" that they could do;"). You interpret it to mean that all men can come to him. The exception clause would be unnecessary if all men had faith as a natural ability." So your interpretation of verse 29 is directly contradictory to the universal denial by Christ in verse 44. If you interpretation were correct there would be no need of any exception clause.

For example, verse 64 proves that some who came to him by baptism and profession NEVER truly came to him by saving faith and the explicit reason that Christ gives for that fact is they had never been drawn by the Father to come to him (v. 65). The wording of verse 65 is explicitly explanatory of unbelief in verse 64.

What you are failing to see is that in verse 28 and verse 30 there is complete confidence being expressed by them that they can do the works of God.

28 ¶ Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

So you are interpreting verse 29 to support their stated confidence, while I am interpreting verse 29 to be consistent not only with the conclusion of their lack of faith as verse 36 declares but with Christ's universal denial that anyone can have such confidence (v. 44).


No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


THAT IS THE PROBLEM Jesus is unmasking - they have no such ability and yet your interpretation is merely repeating their claim to have such ability ("might do" "may" "do"). No one is denying that people must come and eat and drink (metaphor for partaking of Christ by faith) but what Christ is denying is that any man can have that confidence due to universal inability (v. 44) and that is precisely why in verse 36 he claims that the extent of their confidence brought them short of faith in Him. Only those "given" to Christ "SHALL COME" and it is obvious they were never given to him as they did not come to him just as it is obvious those in verse 64 were never drawn by the Father as they did not have true saving faith.

 

What I said, was "your interpretation" and then I refuted your interpretation and replaced it with my interpretation of the overall context. So it is not true that my interpretation is "without context" as I provided an alternative to "your interpretation" of the context. So your point is completely moot.

Another moot point! Again, I did not deny anything the immediate preceding and following context stated. I did deny "your interpretation" which was that the audience "can" believe and need motivation. The context proves the very opposite to your argument. They indeed had motivation and believed they could do whatever was required (vv. 28,30) but the contextual development demonstrates they could not just as Jesus plainly states in John 6:44.

Another moot point and a false charge, as I made no mention of quote "calvin" unquote. You are the one inserting this into this discussion not I. Be honest here. I never referred to Calvin or quoted Calvin. I said the language demands the common sense conclusion that in the context where Christ defines his motivation coming to secure the salvation of those previously "given" (perfect tense) that such cannot have been given prior to Christ's coming without previously been chosen as those to be given. This is simply common sense.

Again, YOU are the one who inserted the name of "Calvin" and the term "Calvinism" into this discussion and not I, so you are right "there is no warrant" for your inclusion of that in this discussion.

L

The text clearly and explicitly states he came to fulfill the will of the Father. Hence, the will of the Father precedes his coming. He then explicitly states the specific will of the Father is to make sure "OF ALL" that the Father had already "given" (perfect tense) him none would be lost. Hence, having been given is inclusive of the revealed will that motivated Christ to come. So there are no assumption on part at all. If there are, then please demonstrate such assumptions by the text rather than making an unwarranted accusation.