John 6:36-39

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, May 31, 2013.

  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    Jn. 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
    37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
    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.
    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.


    Some from his audiance had asked for a sign from Christ so that they could "see and beleive" in Him (v. 30). They introduced the miracle of manna as an example of such a sign. (v. 31). Jesus denied that Moses gave them "true" bread from heaven but claimed "My Father" had given them true bread from heaven that if eaten would give life (vv. 32-33). They then asked Jesus to give them this bread (v. 34). Jesus told them that He was that true bread and if they would EAT of Him, that is, PARTAKE OF HIM BY FAITH they would live and never again hunger or thirst (v. 35).

    And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh see and believe] to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


    However, Jesus who knew the hearts of men (Jn. 2:30) asserted that they both had seen him and yet believed not (v. 36).


    But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not

    On the basis of this omnicient assessment He contrasted them with those whom the Father gives to him (vv. 37-39) who will "see and believe" him (v. 40) in direct contrast to those who "see and believe not" (v. 36). John 6:37-39 provides the reason for this difference and it is a difference that God makes rather than sinful man. In John 6:37-39 the word "come" includes seeing and beleiving (vv. 30, 36,40)and it is the Father that gives this ability to both see and beleive or "come" to Christ.


    1. ALL who are given to the Son by the Father come (see and believe)- none fail to come (see and believe) and none that come shall be cast out - v. 37

    All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


    2. ALL who are given by the Father "come" (see and believe) because it is God's will that accomplishes that. He is not referring to merely the "revealed" will of God but the will of God as carried out without flaw by the Son. The Son NEVER fails to fulfill the Will of God.

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


    Those who pervert this passage attempt to make the fulfilling of this will dependent upon those being given, thus conditional and possible to failure. It says no such thing. It is the Son who is placed in charge of accomplishing the Father's will in this matter and He never fails to accomplish the Father's will and can't fail as that would not only be "sin" on His part but denial of His Deity or sovereign power.


    3. "OF ALL" the Father gives "NONE" perish:

    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.

    None, not one, perish not merely because The Son always accomplishes the Father's will, not merely becuase the Son promises that not one that cometh He will never cast out (v. 37) but in addition he promises that every single one given will be "raised up at the last day" in the resurrection of life.

    The phrase "should raise it up again at the last day" is found four times in John 6 (vv. 39, 40, 44, 54) and in each case it refers only to those who come to Christ (see and believe in him) or true beleivers. Furthermore, all the dead will be raised up in the last day and so to make this a generic promise of resurrection invalidates it of any meaning. It refers to the resurrection of life previously mentioned in John 5:29.


    4. John 6:40 comes full circle in contrast to verse 36. Those in verse 36 see and believe not whereas those in verse 40 see and believe and the explanation for the differrence is verses 37-39 or the work of the Son in fulfilling the will of the Father in regard to all that the Father give to the Son. The consequence of giving is coming and ALL who are given ALL come and ALL who come I WILL LOSE NOTHING.

    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.


    CONCLUSION: Those who deny this passage teaches eternal security must deny that it is the Son who is charged with fulfilling the Father's will in verses 38-40 rather than those who come to Christ. They must deny that the repeated phrase "shall raise it (him) up at the resurrection" refers to the resurrection of life. They must deny that "come" is previously defined as seeing and believing (vv. 30,36) as it is also defined in verse 40. Remember, his audiance asked him for sign that they may "see and believe" or "come" to hiim as the Messiah. They must deny that verses 37-39 are the basis for contrast between those in verse 36 as opposed to those in verse 40.
     
    #1 The Biblicist, May 31, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2013
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    repeat of the last
     
    #2 The Biblicist, May 31, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2013
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206

    They asked Christ what could they do to work the works of God (Jn. 6:28) but Christ not only claimed that faith is God's Work but proved it God's work alone in John 6:36-40.

    The fact that the Father must give ALL in order for any to come, and that Christ must carry out the will of the Father so that NONE perish who are given to Him to Come prove that "THIS IS the work of God" - what is His work? "That ye believe."


    Some will attempt by PITTING John 12:32 against John 6:36-65. However, answer the following questions:

    1. Which text comes first? John 6 or John 12?

    2. Which text provides a greater exposition of what is involved in coming? John 6 or John 12:32

    3. Which text should be the basis for interpreting the other? The one that comes first and providers greater exposition or the one that comes later with less exposition?

    4. Can you find the term "men" in the Greek text of John 12?

    5. John 12 is in a context about gentiles seeking Jesus. The Greek term "pas" is anarthous and means "all classes" and corresponds perfectly with the Jewish treatment of Gentiles as unclean and avoiding them.

    6. Pitting one text against another text is admission of ignorance of both texts.

    My position is not based upon any one answer above but the whole group of answers. My position is not based upon a single verse but the entire context of John 6 and John 12.
     
    #3 The Biblicist, May 31, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2013
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    Some have attempted to dispute the exposition above by claiming that only a predisposition for determinism can justify the above exposition. However, first one must prove the exposition is exegetically incorrect BEFORE they can make such a charge or their charge is purely speculative without any exegetical basis to support it. Indeed, if the exegesis repudiates that charge then those making that charge are guilty of approaching this text on the presupposition of soverign freewillism.

    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.
     
    #4 The Biblicist, Jun 2, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2013
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    John 6:36-40 directly and specifically deals with the issue whether a true child of God can be ultimately lost. It is not like the texts, parables used by those who oppose OSAS that require inferences to deny OSAS. It is clear and explicit precept.

    Come on fella's no one has attempted to deal with the exegetical exposition I have presented. Surely if your denial of OSAS is biblical based you ought to be able to show from the grammar or words used in this explicit text that directly deals with the very issue we are debating that I am wrong. Are there any takers??????
     
  6. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is the only clear part of all your posts. Even after reading this, the rest of your posts don't make any sense. I don't see where you are making the connection between this statement and John 6:36-40.

    Jhn 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

    1Cr 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

    Mat 24:13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

    2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
    21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.
    22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.

    Rev 3:5 He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. (I think only a name that was once written in the Book of Life can be erased)
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    It is hard to make sense of what you are saying. My exposition of John 6:36-39 is perfectly logical and consistent with itself. However what has John 15; Mt 24 and 1 Cor. 15 have to do with any kind of exegetical based exposition of John 6:36-39? None of them are written with the purpose to answer whether a true child of God can lose their salvation. All of them require inferences not spelled out in the context and require ignoring the context in which they are found. You are simply pitting scripture against scripture.

    I would be more than happy to deal with any of these texts in a thread devoted to them but I will not let you derail this thread simply because either you are unable or unwilling to deal with this text.
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    Again, I invite those who oppose OSAS to a reasonable and rational contextual based discussion of these verses and the points I have listed above.
     
  9. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Maybe the reason no one has answered this thread is you don't make any sense.
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    Alright, would you please point to anything in my exposition that does not make sense to you?
     
  11. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    What is an exposition?
     
  12. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    I really don't see any connection to OSAS. Here it says Jesus will not reject any who believe, but it doesn't say anything about the unbeliever. A person who has been saved and then backslides would be classified as an unbeliever, not a current believer.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    Preachers use the term all the time when describing sermons or explanations of a given passage of scripture. Like "expository" sermons versus "topical" sermons. An "exposition" of a given text is an explanation of what a text means according to its immediate context. An "exegetical" based exposition is an explanation that is based upon a close study of the grammar and syntax of the Greek or Hebrew text and how the words relate to each other and their grammatical use and meanings.

    For example, I gave a contextual based explanation of the word "come" in John 6:37-39 to mean "see and believe." I based this definition upon the language introducing that text in verse 36 as well as concluding that text in verse 40. A person who sees and believes is one who has been exposed to Christ and comes to him by faith. Those in verse 36 were exposed to Christ but did not come to him in faith. Those in verse 40 were exposed to Christ and did come to him by faith. The reason why those in verse 36 did not and those in verse 40 did is explained in verses 37-39.
     
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    This text is a flat denial that real believers ever become lost. That is the doctrine of OSAS. ALL that the Father gives NONE fail to come - believe in Christ. None that come are cast out by Christ. OF ALL the Father gives NONE ARE LOST but are raised up to eternal life in the resurrection.

    Therefore, those who deny this are basing it upon other texts that do not explicitly address this very question but are assuming that from certain presuppositions and inferences they are reading into proof texts or interpretations that will not stand up to the context in which their proof text is found.

    It is also a failure to consider other explanations. For example, not all who profess are true believers (1 Jn. 2:19; Mat. 13) and we should expect these to apostatize from their profession and we should expect these to manifest fruits contrary to salvation without repentance or chastening. We should not use such examples as proof for real born again persons becoming lost when it is the very evidence presented in scripture they were never saved (1 Jn. 2:19). Another alternative explanation is that salvation is multifaceted and refers more than just entrance into heaven but also the salvation or loss of present tense redemption of our time = daily life which can be lost without losing ultimate salvation (1 Cor. 3:14-15; John 15, etc.).
     
    #14 The Biblicist, Jun 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2013
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    I am more than happy to deal with other scriptures but not on this thread. This thread is devoted to the discussion of this portion of scripture in its immediate context alone.
     
  16. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    You ruined it...I wanted to see how many pages he would get out of replying to himself :)
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    Apparently you are not capable any valid criticisms or you wouldn't be making such antagonistic comments.
     
  18. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't respond to you. Any time anyone makes a valid criticism you merely dismiss it and go back to talking to yourself, anyway.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,114
    Likes Received:
    206
    So why even make a comment if you have no intention to make any substantive contribution to the thread????? Are you looking to just start a fight?

    In regard to your claim that I ignore any "valid criticism" - can you give an example because I cannot recall ever ignoring any "valid" criticism although I can recall ignoring many invalid criticisms.
     
  20. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not worth my time. Gave you one yesterday.
     

Share This Page

Loading...