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.

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?

 

[Van]

Calvinism loves to add to scripture to alter it to fit Calvinist doctrine. Here the idea is that Jesus will not lose anyone who has been given to Him. Calvinism then alters it to read, Jesus will not loss anyone who have been given to Him at the present time. Thus requiring everyone to have been given to Jesus who will not be lost before Christ died. Silly, but there you have it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Calvinism loves to add to scripture to alter it to fit Calvinist doctrine. Here the idea is that Jesus will not lose anyone who has been given to Him. Calvinism then alters it to read, Jesus will not loss anyone who have been given to Him at the present time. Thus requiring everyone to have been given to Jesus who will not be lost before Christ died. Silly, but there you have it.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:....at the present time? It is you who add words that is why only you believes what you post:thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinism loves to add to scripture to alter it to fit Calvinist doctrine. Here the idea is that Jesus will not lose anyone who has been given to Him. Calvinism then alters it to read, Jesus will not loss anyone who have been given to Him at the present time. Thus requiring everyone to have been given to Jesus who will not be lost before Christ died. Silly, but there you have it.

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?

 

[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.

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?

4. 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??????

5. 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?

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.

 

[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.

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?

4. 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??????

5. 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?

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.

 

[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.

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??????

5. 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?

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.

 

[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.

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?

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???

 

[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.

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?

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????

 

[DHK]

The context is ignored here. It is not just verse 38 or even 37-38. It begins back at verse 26, and it goes much further than verse 38. Without the context the meaning in lost.
Going back at least to verse 35, we read:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
--The issue is one of belief or faith. That is the basis of this conversation. Those who came to Christ had to come on the basis of faith: whether or not they believed in Christ.
--This is the one thing, the one "work" that they could do; in fact the only requirement that they had for entering into heaven:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
--In the entire conversation Jesus had made this very clear. All who came to Christ had to come on the basis of faith.

In verses 35 and 36 Jesus declares and convinces them that He is that Bread that they, by faith, must eat, and by faith (by partaking or believing) they would have eternal life.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Look at the rebuke given for the lack of faith.
Now, the Father has no concern that His work will be ineffective. He will enable people to come to Christ. Jesus has confidence people will come to him. But the people must have confidence also. Confidence is faith.
Remember that many came to him because they had the faith or confidence that he would and could heal them.
Jesus never turned away anyone. He says that very plainly here. "He that comes to me I will in no wise cast out."

(ISV) Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and I'll never turn away the one who comes to me.

Jesus repeats his Divine origin:
Joh 6:38-39
(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.
--He came down from Heaven to do the Father's will who sent Him.
--The Father's will is that those whom He gives to the Son will not suffer an single loss and all will be raised to life in the resurrection.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
--This is a reaffirmation not only of the previous verse, but reinforces what he had previously taught them. Salvation is based on their belief.

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
--The Jews grumble at this teaching and question his qualifications. Isn't he just a carpenter's son, the son of Joseph?

Joh 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 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.
--First Jesus makes no attempt to rebuke their grumbling, for they are in no position to judge him.
Now note carefully: No man can come to Jesus (or believe on him) without divine help.
This drawing of God is not limited to just a few (John 12:32) :
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--This does not mean that all men will be saved, but it does mean that Gentiles as well as Jews will be saved and resurrected:

The context of John 12:32:
John 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

Joh 6:45-48
(45) It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(46) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
(47) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(48) I am that bread of life.
--Here are the concluding verses.
The prophets believed this message. The must come to me.
The way to come to Christ is through faith. Christ comes back full circle to his statement in verse 35: "I am the bread of live."
Eternal life is obtainable only through faith in him.

This is not a discourse on election. If one desires eternal life he must come through faith in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

The context is ignored here. It is not just verse 38 or even 37-38.

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.

In verses 35 and 36 Jesus declares and convinces them that He is that Bread that they, by faith, must eat, and by faith (by partaking or believing) they would have eternal life.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Look at the rebuke given for the lack of faith.
Now, the Father has no concern that His work will be ineffective. He will enable people to come to Christ. Jesus has confidence people will come to him. But the people must have confidence also. Confidence is faith.
Remember that many came to him because they had the faith or confidence that he would and could heal them.
Jesus never turned away anyone. He says that very plainly here. "He that comes to me I will in no wise cast out."

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.

 

[savedbymercy]

The context is ignored here. It is not just verse 38 or even 37-38. It begins back at verse 26, and it goes much further than verse 38. Without the context the meaning in lost.
Going back at least to verse 35, we read:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
--The issue is one of belief or faith. That is the basis of this conversation. Those who came to Christ had to come on the basis of faith: whether or not they believed in Christ.
--This is the one thing, the one "work" that they could do; in fact the only requirement that they had for entering into heaven:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
--In the entire conversation Jesus had made this very clear. All who came to Christ had to come on the basis of faith.

In verses 35 and 36 Jesus declares and convinces them that He is that Bread that they, by faith, must eat, and by faith (by partaking or believing) they would have eternal life.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Look at the rebuke given for the lack of faith.
Now, the Father has no concern that His work will be ineffective. He will enable people to come to Christ. Jesus has confidence people will come to him. But the people must have confidence also. Confidence is faith.
Remember that many came to him because they had the faith or confidence that he would and could heal them.
Jesus never turned away anyone. He says that very plainly here. "He that comes to me I will in no wise cast out."

(ISV) Everything the Father gives me will come to me, and I'll never turn away the one who comes to me.

Jesus repeats his Divine origin:
Joh 6:38-39
(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.
--He came down from Heaven to do the Father's will who sent Him.
--The Father's will is that those whom He gives to the Son will not suffer an single loss and all will be raised to life in the resurrection.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
--This is a reaffirmation not only of the previous verse, but reinforces what he had previously taught them. Salvation is based on their belief.

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
--The Jews grumble at this teaching and question his qualifications. Isn't he just a carpenter's son, the son of Joseph?

Joh 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 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.
--First Jesus makes no attempt to rebuke their grumbling, for they are in no position to judge him.
Now note carefully: No man can come to Jesus (or believe on him) without divine help.
This drawing of God is not limited to just a few (John 12:32) :
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--This does not mean that all men will be saved, but it does mean that Gentiles as well as Jews will be saved and resurrected:

The context of John 12:32:
John 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:

Joh 6:45-48
(45) It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(46) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
(47) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(48) I am that bread of life.
--Here are the concluding verses.
The prophets believed this message. The must come to me.
The way to come to Christ is through faith. Christ comes back full circle to his statement in verse 35: "I am the bread of live."
Eternal life is obtainable only through faith in him.

This is not a discourse on election. If one desires eternal life he must come through faith in Christ.

This is promoting salvation by works, by what a person does!

 

[BrotherJoseph]

This is not a discourse on election. If one desires eternal life he must come through faith in Christ.

Scripture tells us, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith," (Galatians 5:22), therefore for one to have faith he must first have the Spirit. The tree that produces comes before the fruit.

 

[Protestant]

Biblicist:

Nice to see you back on the CAL vs ARM forum, even though it was not your original intent. :>)

Once again, your exegesis of John 6 is irrefutable.

Tragically, it is still being discarded as untenable by those who, of their own 'free' will, refuse to see the logic of it.

BTW, your refutation of 'Professor' Flowers was spot-on.

Am I the only member of the Board who is shocked to discover Skandalon's true identity?

I sensed his posts held a tinge of 'superiority' which permeated his writing, though try as he might to curtail it when speaking down us 'little folks.'

May our Lord have mercy upon his students.

 

[DHK]

The problem is that you use your interpretation of the overall context to contradict the very meaning of the texts.

Without context there is no meaning.

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.

Not unless your selectively chosen verses contradict the rest of what Jesus was saying in the overall context of the chapter.

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.

One cannot insert "Calvin" into the middle of the chapter without warrant. And since he didn't live then, there is no warrant.

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.

Let's not make assumptions that aren't there.

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.

Stick with the text. It simply says: "My Father which gave them me..."
Never mind all the hypotheticals and reading into the text the things that are not there.

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.

No Jesus makes a simple play one words.
Like the rich your ruler who asked Jesus: "What must I DO to inherit eternal life," Jesus told him: "Thou knowest the commandments, this do and thou shalt live." He replied that he had kept all of them from his youth up. Jesus proceeded to show him how that was not true.
This time, Jesus takes a different approach.

The question is basically the same as the rich young ruler but in different words:
What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
--Jesus says there is only one work of God.
The only "work of God" is faith. We know from Romans 4:1-5 that faith is not a work. Jesus was teaching that they couldn't work to have eternal life, they could only believe. There was nothing they could do but have faith.
Therefore his answer was:
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Faith is not a work.
--This was a play on words.

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.

There is no mention of baptism here.
The truth of these verses is not about drawing but about giving.
Those that the Father gave to Christ, he will raise up.

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.

They came asking Jesus "what works," based on a rebuke of Jesus that He had just given them--"Labor not!"
Whatever confidence they may have had, had just been shaken. They were commanded not to work. "Labor not!"
They were not confident at all.
You are reading into this passage something that isn't here perhaps based on your own presuppositions instead of expounding the text.

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).

In the whole scenario Jesus rebukes them for their lack of faith.
I have already stated that clearly.

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.

The problem for the Calvinist is the utter disregard for the true teaching of this verse, and the blindness based on their 16th century idol.
The word "draw" does not mean regenerate, convert, justify, save, etc.

The only meaning that Strong's give is "to draw," "to drag."
However, Thayer's Lexicons says this:

ἑλκύω / ἕλκω
helkuō / helkō
Thayer Definition:
1) to draw, drag off
2) metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel

Quite simply, the drawing is akin to the convicting of the Holy Spirit.
God doesn't force anyone into salvation. They must choose. That is what the passage teaches over and over again, a point which you conveniently ignore.

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.

Nowhere does the bible teach Total Inability. It simply teaches that God is in the process, even initiates the process. But we have known that all along. No one ever contradicted that. That doesn't not refer to regeneration.

Consider this about the above verses:
What was Christ promised?

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." [NOT all He draws].
"Him that comes to me I will in no wise cast out." [NOT everyone the Father draws].
"And this is the Father's will...that of all which he giveth me I should lose nothing..." [NOT all whom He draws]/
"Everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting live..." [NOT all who are drawn]
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."
[ALL who come have been drawn--not all who are drawn come].
"And I will raise him up at the last day."
[ALL who will be raised up have been drawn, but not all who have been drawn will be raised up].

Read the entire text again (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?
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 gave the Son. There is nothing here about causing a select number to believe unto salvation and choosing not to save the rest of mankind.
(taken from Dave Hunts's book "What Love is This," page. 420

 

[DHK]

Scripture tells us, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith," (Galatians 5:22), therefore for one to have faith he must first have the Spirit. The tree that produces comes before the fruit.

Faith is given to a believer, it is a spiritual fruit. It is also a gift of the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, healings, miracles, etc.
Would God give such spiritual fruit and/or the fruit of the Spirit to unsaved individuals?
Of course not!

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Faith is given to a believer, it is a spiritual fruit. It is also a gift of the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, healings, miracles, etc.
Would God give such spiritual fruit and/or the fruit of the Spirit to unsaved individuals?
Of course not!

Faith is belief in the truth, thus how can it be "given" to one who is already a believer as you say above that "faith is given to a believer"? I concur with your comment above that faith is a gift of the Spirit, therefore I conclude for one to have faith he must first already possess the Holy Spirit and be born again to produce the "fruit" of faith, do you agree or do you believe one must first have faith in order to become born again?

 

[DHK]

Faith is belief in the truth, thus how can it be "given" to one who is already a believer as you say above that "faith is given to a believer? I concur with your comment above that it is a gift of the Spirit, therefore I conclude for one to have faith he must first already possess the Holy Spirit and be regenerated to produce this fruit, do you agree or do you believe one must first have faith in order to become regenerated?

Jesus said: Except you be as these little children you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of God.
In context he was speaking of faith. A small child innately has faith in his or her parents. They will intuitively trust their parents and not a stranger for they know that their parents will provide for them, protect them, guide them, etc. A stranger will not. Automatically they fear strangers.
Jesus was saying you must have that simplistic faith as a child has. Put your faith in me, your entire trust, your confidence in me to save you. That is what the term "saving faith" is all about.

It is not the source of faith that is important.
It is not how you define it that is important.
What is important is the object of faith.
Everyone has faith. The object of the child's faith is their parents.

The object of anyone else's faith--if they want to be saved--must be Christ.
Only Christ can save. He must be the object of your faith.

Throughout the gospels, Jesus said over and over again:
"Thy faith has made you whole," your faith has made you whole, etc.
It was their faith. He never even one time implied that they had faith given to them by Him or His Father. It was their faith that healed them, made them whole or even saved them. He constantly referred to "their faith."

"What must I do to be saved."
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Believe--have faith! Whose faith? It was the jailer's faith that was spoken of in Acts 16:31.

 

[The Biblicist]

Without context there is no meaning.

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.

Not unless your selectively chosen verses contradict the rest of what Jesus was saying in the overall context of the chapter.

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.

One cannot insert "Calvin" into the middle of the chapter without warrant.

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.

And since he didn't live then, there is no warrant.

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

et's not make assumptions that aren't there.

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.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Jesus said: Except you be as these little children you can in no wise enter into the kingdom of God.
In context he was speaking of faith. A small child innately has faith in his or her parents. They will intuitively trust their parents and not a stranger for they know that their parents will provide for them, protect them, guide them, etc. A stranger will not. Automatically they fear strangers.
Jesus was saying you must have that simplistic faith as a child has. Put your faith in me, your entire trust, your confidence in me to save you. That is what the term "saving faith" is all about.

It is not the source of faith that is important.
It is not how you define it that is important.
What is important is the object of faith.
Everyone has faith. The object of the child's faith is their parents.

The object of anyone else's faith--if they want to be saved--must be Christ.
Only Christ can save. He must be the object of your faith.

Throughout the gospels, Jesus said over and over again:
"Thy faith has made you whole," your faith has made you whole, etc.
It was their faith. He never even one time implied that they had faith given to them by Him or His Father. It was their faith that healed them, made them whole or even saved them. He constantly referred to "their faith."

"What must I do to be saved."
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Believe--have faith! Whose faith? It was the jailer's faith that was spoken of in Acts 16:31.

DHK, please post your responses to the following questions I have for you so I can better understand your beliefs. Can someone without the Holy Spirit have faith in the gospel? If you believe the answer is yes, from where does the faith come from? Does the Holy Spirit come to an individual as a result of them having faith in the gospel or is the Holy Spirit present in an individual before they have faith in the gospel? Is an individual born again before God before or after they are justified by faith?