Does John 6:39 teach Eternal Security?

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day (John 6:39 NRSV)

On facebook, a Latter-day Saint used my post 1 Corinthians 10:12: Biblical proof a true believer can lose their salvation where I reproduce the following quotation from a scholarly source which explicitly proves that the apostle Paul believed a truly justified individual can lose salvation:

There are at least two important considerations which make this interpretation untenable. First, Paul begins 10:1-13 with the metaphors of salvation through the concepts of election and baptism-initiation in the Spirit and water (10:1-4). Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians those whom Paul addresses are considered to be saints, called, saved, cleansed, justified, sanctified, members of the body of Christ, and operating in the Spirit (e.g., 10:1, 6, 11 cf. 1:1-9, 18, 32; 4:15; 6:6, 11, 19f; 12:13). Paul stresses the solidarity of "all" of the Israelites who were called into these divine privileges indicating the genuine nature of these experiences. In Israel's tradition-history which Paul adopts, both Caleb (who made it through the journey) and Korah (who did not make it) participated in the "same" (το αυτο) exodus/wilderness experiences. Paul thus implies a common election that was experienced by all. Moreover, Paul calls the Israelites "our fathers" and transfers the salvific language of this passage to the Corinthians whom he believes are Christians. In his discourse on idol meats, Paul's language assumes the strong are genuine believers: 1) they, along with Paul, find their life through the same God and Lord (8:5-6); 2) they are not to offend the weaker αδελφος who belongs to Christ (8:11f); 3) they became Christians directly through Paul's effort (9:1ff); 4) they participate in spiritual matters and the new era (9:11, 24ff); and 5) they are members of the body of Christ (10:16ff).

Second, Paul's binary usage of the words "stand" (ιστημι) and "fall" (πιπτω) in 10:12 reinforce an interpretation that a genuine standing in grace and a real danger of falling into apostasy is at stake. Paul uses the perfect tense of ιστημι here as in Romans 11:20-22 where he gives another warning in the milieu of apostasy and high-mindedness. He also uses the word elsewhere in relation to apostasy and perseverance (Gal. 5:1ff; cf. 2 Thes. 2:14). Related to this usage is Paul’s understanding of ιστημι as denoting the idea of one’s standing in faith and grace or in the message of the Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1f; 16:13; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 5:2; 11:20; Phil. 4:1; cf. 1 Pet. 5:12) . . . The idea of standing in faith might have as its basis the ancient Jewish concept of one establishing or standing on the word of the covenant (cf. Psa. 104:8-10 LXX). In the Deuteronomic tradition, standing in the covenant is set in contrast with departing from it (Deut. 29:13-18). In a broad sense, then, Paul may have understood this nuance of “stand” as pointing to the new eschatological covenant of the Christians. Hence, the converse of standing in a new covenant would be to fall away from it . . . Paul himself associates the terms “stand”/”fall” and “beware” with apostasy in some of his other letters. If the Galatian Christians stand in the liberty of Christ, they could escape falling from grace which occurs by attempting to be justified through the law (Gal. 5:1-4). Paul warns that those among them who are seeking to be justified by the law are “cut off” from Christian and “fallen from grace”  (5:4: κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε.). In this letter, Paul is anxious that the Galatians will fall back into confining ritual and social practises; hence, he fears that the original gospel of liberty through the Spirit they received may have been in vain (3:4; 4:11; cf. 2:2; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Cor. 15:2) . .  Particularly significant is that the Corinthian argument of Paul in 10:1-13 is perfectly consistent with what he does in other letters. Similar to the Corinthian situation, the Galatian warning (βλεπετε μη—Gal. 5:15 cf. 1 Cor. 10:12) is set in the situation of falling away from grace (Gal. 5:1, 4 cf. 1 Cor. 10:5, 12), being hindered from running a course (Gal. 5:7 cf. 1 Cor. 9:24ff), ad being severed from Christ (Gal. 5:5; 4:30 cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 10:4-10). Paul also mentions leaven as a negative influence on the believers in both letters (Gal. 5:9; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7) and a condemnation on those who practise vices such as discord, dissensions, and factions. Such works of the flesh prevent one from entering the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7-8 cf. 1 Cor. 5:8f; 6:9-10; 10:7-10; Rom. 8:12-13). In relation to apostasy, the essential difference between the two letters is that the Corinthian warning focuses on the danger of apostatising through the abuse of liberty. In Galatians the congregations were erring in the opposite extreme—they were entangled by the works of the law and needed more liberty in Christ (Gal. 3-5). For Paul, those who taught another Gospel that hindered one’s liberty in Christ were accursed and their message was a perversion and desertion or turning away (μετατιθημι) from the true Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9 c. 1 Cor. 16:22). (B.J. Oropeza, Paul and Apostasy: Eschatology, Perseverance, and Falling Away in the Corinthian Congregation [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 194-95, 196-97)

The response? Short version, "nuh-uh"; the long answer:

Carl D Pedro Paul was not teaching you can lose your salvation. If one falls from the faith, they are false converts. Jesus said "Who the Father gives me, I will lose none". If you could lose your salvation, then your salvation is dependent on you, instead of God.

With respect to the verse that this Reformed Protestant references (John 6:39), does it actually teach that no justified individual can lose their salvation? Well, we do have 1 Cor 10:12 which he dodged. Furthermore, even in the Johannine corpus, truly justified individuals are said to be able to lose their salvation. Consider, for instance, John 15:6:

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

In this text, Christ is not speaking of superficial believers, who like those discussed in 1 John 2:19 were not true believers, but instead, those who were truly regenerated believers who lost their salvation. When one examines the various instances of the term ἐν ἐμοί ("in me") in the Gospel of John that shows that those whom this term is applied to are salvifically united with Christ or Christ being "in" the Father:

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him (ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτω). (John 6:56)

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: they ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me (εν εμοι), and I in him. (John 10:38)

Believest though not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (εν εμοι)? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me (εν εμοι), he doest the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (εν εμοι): or else believe me for the very works' sake. (John 14:10-11)

At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me (εν εμοι), and I in you. (John 14:20)

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and has nothing in me (εν εμοι). (John 14:30)

Every branch in me (εν εμοι) that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit . . . Abide in me (εν εμοι), and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am in the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me (εν εμοι), and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me (εν εμοι), he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. if ye abide in me (εν εμοι), and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. (John 15:2, 5-7)

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me (εν εμοι) ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. (John 16:33)

That they all may be one; as though, Father, art in me (εν εμοι), and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me . . . I in them, and thou in me (εν εμοι), that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:21, 23)

As with many other key texts (e.g., Heb 6:4-6), the plain, exegetically-sound interpretation of John 15:6 is that true, regenerate believers can fall from salvation; in other words, the people in view are not a pseudo-branch or branch that was never truly connected to the vine; instead, Christ assumes that these people who fall away were already "in" Him and were a genuine branch of the vine, resulting in their being thrown in the fire (i.e., being lost). This is yet another refutation of many (false) theologies within Evangelical Protestantism.

Furthermore, in 1 John 2:1-2, Jesus is said to be a present propitiation (ιλασμος) for the sins of present believers. For a full exegesis of this passage and Heb 2:17 which teaches the same thing, see Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement. One has to ask why Jesus has to be a present-tense atoning sacrifice even for then-justified believers if one receives a blanket forgiveness of one’s sins (not just past and then-present, but also then-future sins) in light of many Protestant theologies? This is paralleled in 2 Pet 1:9 which speaks of one’s past sins being forgiven, but not one’s then-future sins:

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged (καθαρισμος [to cleanse from impurity]) from his old sins.

Other instances from John's writings would include the following passages from the book of Revelation:

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (Rev 2:5)

In this verse, Jesus commands one to repent, but such repentance is not presented in rather superficial terms; instead, Christ commands one to “do” (ποιεω) the “first works” or else the church of Ephesus’ “candlestick” will be removed.

The NET Bible's note on this verse captures the meaning of this verse both soundly and succinctly:

The repeated mention of repenting at the end of the verse suggests that the intervening material ("do the deeds you did at first") specifies how the repentance is to be demonstrated.

This verse refutes the heresy in some (not all) Protestant circles, antinomianism, where repentance is either optional or where the call to repentance is seen as a “work” and perverts the true gospel of “free grace.” Furthermore, this verse is important as one will often hear from Evangelicals and others that the Latter-day Saint view of repentance is unbiblical, and yet this one verse captures the essence of what Latter-day Saint theology states about repentance—it is not merely confessing that one is repentant, but also incorporates our actions where necessary, such as repartition (cf. Alma 24:11).

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess to each and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. (Rev 2:20-21 [emphasis added])

In verse 21, Jesus says that he gave Jezebel, the false prophetess, a space of time (χρονος) to repent, and His giving her this time is presented as a purpose clause in the Greek (a ινα-clause). However, this notwithstanding, and Christ’s obvious desire for her to repent, she did not.

While not a commonly cited verse, this does show a couple of things that runs antithetical to much of Reformed soteriology, such as (1) Christ wants all people, not simply people from all ethnic categories, to be saved; (2) that humans have a free-will to accept or reject the gospel and (3) as a result of the previous points, Christ’s sacrifice was for all people, not simply those God actively predestined before the creation of the world. To claim otherwise, one will be forced to engage in much eisegesis and special-pleading to read this pericope in light of TULIP.

Now I am sure that one will ask "but doesn't 1 John 2:19 show that all those who leave were never true believers to begin with?" Here is the text in question:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Some proponents of eternal security and its variations argue that this verse proves that all those who leave the faith were superficial converts who were not truly justified and true believers. The problem with this is that it isolates a singular verse from the totality of Scripture, and results in much scripture-wrenching of texts such as Heb 6:4-6 and 10;26, for instance, that shows that regenerated individuals can lose their salvation and that Christ’s sacrifice is no longer effective in their lives.

In reality, “they” refers to the heretical docetists whose theology John’s gospel and epistles refutes. This is an early Christological heresy that stated that while Christ appeared to have been mortal, in reality, he only appeared to have been mortal; in reality, he was not truly mortal (e.g. he did not suffer; did not die). John warns against such a theology and condemns it in texts such as the following:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. That is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

In this verse, John is referring to a specific group of individuals within the community he is addressing; for Calvinists and other proponents of a variation of eternal security to cite this as biblical “proof” that no true believer can fall away and lose their salvation is eisegesis, ignoring both the immediate context of John’s epistles and the entirety of the biblical revelation.

For a useful study of John’s anti-doceticism, see the study by Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School.

On John 10:28-29 and Rev 17:8, two texts also abused by some Protestants to support eternal security/Perseverance of the Saints, see Does John 10:28-29 teach Eternal Security? and Does Revelation 17:8 support Eternal Security?

One final point on John's theology, with respect to the phrase "the last day" in John 6:39 (as well as vv. 40, 44, 54), the Greek is τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ and it is singular as our English translations render it, not the plural "last days." The singular refers to the physical resurrection of the dead, not eschatological salvation. Consider the other instances of this phrase outside John 6:

Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day (τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). (John 11:24)

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). (John 12:48)

In these passages, τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ refers to the resurrection. The only other place it is used is in John 7:37, and it is used in a less theological and more secular sense, that is, the last day of a festival.

Indeed, the Evangelical Protestant NET Bible has the following note for "the last day" for John 6:39 supporting what we have just argued:

Joh 6:39 Now this is the will of the one who sent me – that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up⁶⁰ at the last day.

⁶⁰ tn Or "resurrect them all," or "make them all live again"; Grk "raise it up." The word "all" is supplied to bring out the collective nature of the neuter singular pronoun αὐτό (auto) in Greek. The plural pronoun "them" is used rather than neuter singular "it" because this is clearer in English, which does not use neuter collective singulars in the same way Greek does.

Notwithstanding, when one examines vv.37-40 in the Greek, we learn a few things of soteriological importance. In John 6:37, we read:

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

The term "cometh to me" is τὸν ἐρχόμενον, which is a participle; that is, Jesus is speaking of those who continue to come to Him. This is further emphasised in John 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 on the last day.

"Believeth [on him]" (KJV) again uses the participle form, this time πιστεύων. In John 6:37-40, Jesus is not speaking of those who (truly) believed once but then fell away; instead, he is describing a person who continuously comes and believes in Him.

Furthermore, our Reformed friend is dead-wrong when he stated that "Paul was not teaching you can lose your salvation." Firstly, 1 Cor 10:12 explicitly teaches such (showing that Protestants only pay lip-service to their belief in the perspicuity of Scripture; for more, see Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura). Secondly, elsewhere in his epistles Paul provided another example of a truly justified person who did lose their salvation and had to be re-justified: King David.

In Rom 4, Paul uses two Old Testament figures as examples of an individual justified by God--Abraham (through his use of Gen 15:6) and Kind David (through his use of Psa 32). We have discussed Abraham's justification, and how such refutes, not supports, the Reformed view of justification (cf. this discussion on Rom 4:9 and this study on λογιζομαι).

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

Much more could be said, but it should be obvious that John in his Gospel and other writings, as well the other biblical authors, did not teach eternal security.