John 6:38-39

[The Biblicist]

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.

The subjects in verse 38 are not believers. The subjects are the Father and the Son. The one committed to carrying out the will of the Father in verse 38 is not a believer but the Son of God. It is the Son of God fulfilling the will of the Father that demands that "NOTHING" should be lost "OF ALL" the Father gave to Him. It is the Son's obedience to the Father's will that demands that ALL given to him not merely come to him but will be raised up "again at the last day."

These verses define the will and work of the Father and the Son as the basis of eternal security "OF ALL" given to the Son by the Father. This is why ALL whom the Father gives come or see and believe (Jn. 6:40).

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

The subjects in verse 38 are not believers. The subjects are the Father and the Son. The one committed to carrying out the will of the Father in verse 38 is not a believer but the Son of God. It is the Son of God fulfilling the will of the Father that demands that "NOTHING" should be lost "OF ALL" the Father gave to Him. It is the Son's obedience to the Father's will that demands that ALL given to him not merely come to him but will be raised up "again at the last day."

These verses define the will and work of the Father and the Son as the basis of eternal security "OF ALL" given to the Son by the Father. This is why ALL whom the Father gives come or see and believe (Jn. 6:40).

This text repudiates the charge that a presupposition of determinism is necessary to interpret the above text they way I do. Indeed, this text proves that only a presupposition of soverign freewillism can interpet this text differently. My exposition is based upon the merits of the text alone.

If you dispute this, be prepared not merely to allege your accusation but present the exegetical proof to support that my exposition is contrary to the merits of the text itself. If you merely allege it without contextual merit, I will simply point to the exegetical merits of the text to support my exposition.