JOHN 3:16, It's an eternal security text, not a way to get salvation.

Pastor Larry said:

... I'm so thankful Jesus Christ paid my debt because God doesn't accept polluted sacrifices... Brother Glen

 

Why do some brethren on here worship a God of chance instead of a God of purpose?... God purposed to save his people and he did just that... without their help... without their acceptance and rejection of what was done. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God... He planned it... purposed it... willed it... and accomplished it... and in his Son Jesus Christ finished it!... IT IS FINISHED!... What was finished?... All the Father gave him in eternity before Adam and Eve were created... The world... the elect... the believeth!... Brother Glen

 

... I'm so thankful Jesus Christ paid my debt because God doesn't accept polluted sacrifices... Brother Glen </font>[/QUOTE]I certainly agree. Hell is eternal because we are not able to make a sufficient payment. Jesus paid it for us, taking our place, as Peter says "The Just for the unjust."

 

Tyndale, it is even more amazing that the primitives base an entire doctrine over the mistranslation of the KJV. Can you read greek? Do you understand greek? Clearly, the phrase is "faith in Jesus". That is what saves. Are you saying that Jesus must believe in a person in order for them to be saved? So, faith alone is really a point for Jesus and not us? Please...

 

Preachtheword said:

No I don't read Greek or understand Greek and a thousand other languages either. The first thing you do is start attacking the KJV which I have not stooped to doing with the one you read. Read the NIV on the John 3:16 as this should fit your doctrine... Instead of believeth which is used in the KJV now it is changed to will believe... One is future the other is past. Since my Bible starts with In the beginning God I'll stick with the past. The Faith OF Jesus Christ makes the Faith IN Jesus Christ a reality. The Primitive brethren have never changed the written word to suit their doctrine as some do! We do not have a flip flop belief and as one brother said on here about me personally. Brother Glen I believe you are in error but I will say one thing about you, you are consistant. Hey maybe I should buy a Greek Bible?... Nah... but then again what do my Primitive brethen think I should do? Do they own one?... It hasn't changed our doctrine... Has it helped those who do?... What benefit is their owning one? I do have a Strongs Concordance I used as a reference for 35 years... Brother Glen

[ June 04, 2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Let's revisit John 3:16. Let's decide on whom the burden of proof lies!

Noman F. Douty in his book, "The Death of Christ," states thse works:

Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament
Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament
Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Ardnt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the NEw Testament
Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the NEw Testament
The NEw Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
Hastings' Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Tasker's New Bible Dictionary
Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology
John Davis in his Dictionary of the BIble (both harrison and Davis list John 3:16 as referring to mankind, though both are Presbyterians)

Then Douty says,

"But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word for world is never said to denote "the elect." These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29, 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31; 16:-8-11; 17-21, 23; II Corinthians 5:19; John 2:2; and 4:14."

He goes on to say,

"All of this is disastrous for advocates of Limited atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of lexicons, encyclopedias and dictionaries when they ascribe a different meaning of the word kosmos which will support their theological system."

In fact, I challenge anyone to find any kind of use in ancient or koine Greek outside the NT where "kosoms" is translated "the elect."

Guess what? Scholars haven't found such use yet.

 

And who actually translates "kosmos" as "elect"? What people do say is that it means "people throughout the world" (a similar definition can probably be found in most of those lexicons, dictionaries, etc.), rather than every single person in the world, and that given what other scriptures say, these "people throughout the world" are, in actual fact, the elect.

I actually think that in this verse, "kosmos" may very well mean "mankind in general", but not necessarily "every single individual human being who has ever lived". God has a sort of general love for mankind--he is benevolent toward the human race. It is a benevolent act toward mankind in general to make a means by which men can be saved.

I don't think John 3:16 is a verse than needs to be "explained away" by those who hold to limited atonement. It fits perfectly within the particular redemption framework just exactly as it reads.

 

What I was calling blasphemy was the idea that we could be saved by dying for ourselves, which a MERE substitutional understanding would lead to.

Why are all English translation so aweful? Not one translation translates anti "in place of" in Mt 20:28 - that's ridiculous.

 

I think the reason they translate it "for," is that the word "huper" in Greek implies substitution muhc better than anti. Since the main meaning for anti is for (such as eye for [anti] an eye and so on), they use for, as to not give their own possible bias in the text. To translate anti as "in place of" could very well be seen as a translator adding in his or her own interpretation of Christ's death as substitutionary.

 

Because, for one thing, "anti" is very similar to our English word "for"--it has a range of meaning. "For" can mean "because" (as in "I am posting late, FOR I took a nap), or it can also imply substitution (as in "an eye FOR an eye" where it means one eye in exchange for or in place of another). So it is with "anti". It can mean "because" and it can mean "in place of or instead of", among other things. So the English word "for" is a good translation. We just have to remember that our preposition "for" can take on several different meanings, too.

That said, here are a couple of places where my NAS translate "anti" to show substitution:

Matt 2:22--"When He heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea IN PLACE OF his father Herod...."

Luke 11:11--"Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake INSTEAD OF a fish, will he?"