How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

The thought was exactly the same.

 

Whatever? That's it?

If you are an unrepentant sinner...you had the choice to repent! If you are un-repentant, you did not repent, not you couldn't repent. That's adding to Scripture.

 

Hello Allan.

No, why ask me you have a bible haven't you?

You don't your bible do you? It could take a while to answer you fully, for one thing, Eli did do something so you are wrong there as well, but I know God said it after He had determined not to atone for Eli's house for sure. 1 Sam 2:25 If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.

That might be your opinion but it is not mine.

Shadow boxing?

Not once the sentence was passed, temple? No atonement was offered after the sentence and the shadow is not the reality. The family continued to serve the Lord even though they did not receive the atonement for themselves. God can handle sin can He not?

You have shown nothing except an inability to grasp a fact of black and white. As with Jacob and Esau turning into Israel and Edom now you say that God does give an atonement for Eli's house after God clearly and unmistakably, and by swearing an oath, said that He would never give them an atonement, He says no atonement will be given for them. Limited atonement is proved regardless of your opinion.

With respect. `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "

Your version of this would read, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering. Not really though. ' "

Your: 'Disproved by virture of scriptural context.' Really, in context of scripture, ISA 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Who puts Israel for Jacob and Edom for Esau and 'does give' instead of 'does not give'. To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Is 8:20.

john.

 

webdog.

Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

And that is a false charge. You should apologise.

Yes and you or Jesus takes the blame. RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

john.

 

One thing about you I have learned:
You attack the person, not the beliefs.

I'm not adding to Scripture.

God foreknows those who will call on His name.
God only saves those who call on His name.
God cannot save those who do not call on His name.
God is not responsible for those who do not call on His name.

Where's the difference?
You deny election, but you embrace God's full knowledge of all things.
God still knows in advance who is bound for hell, yet He creates them anyway.
Thus ensuring their eternal damnation for the sin of rejecting Him.
How is your position easier to deal with?

People are still in hell because of sin and God is still responsible for creating them and thus allowing them to be sinners.
If God only created future believers than no one would have theological issues to deal with. He didn't, so the struggle is real.
God forms and creates persons who will spend an eternity in hell for sin.
That's a terrible thought that brings little comfort this side of heaven.
I don't expect it will always be a terrible thought.
I hope in heaven that I will see hell as God sees it.
Necessary and just.
But for now, it is a terrifying thought.

 

I'm sorry, how did I attack you? You seem to have a real problem with me, and a pretty big chip on your shoulder, and I'm not real sure why. Show where I attacked you or "people".

The difference is seeing everything through a time element. God is not bound by this.

Show where I've ever denied election. False accusation.

My position is He's God...I'm not. A finite being bound by time cannot fully comprehend an infinite God not bound by time. Unfortunately, calvinism thinks it has with it's systematic theology.

Amen! I agree fully!

 

It brings Awesome to the front I think Isaiah. RO 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

What if it is for our good that people go to Hell?

john.

 

I agree that I will be able to think like this in heaven.
But for now, having unbelievers die in sin and know their eternal destiny is hell is sorrowful.

 

last time we argued, comments were moderated.
on a thread with Pastor Larry your comments to him were moderated.
johnp and I both saw your "adding to Scripture" comment as intended to discredit me. I have no chip on my shoulder, but I see a pattern with your posts.

You do deny unconditional election.
You deny that God has sovereignly chosen those who will be His children.
That's what a Calvinist, of which I am, means by election.

 

Why, no He didn't, as a matter of fact, if by "whole world" you mean "every single person in the world who ever lived, lives, or will live".

Quote:
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many [not all], For He shall bear their [the many's] iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many [not all], And made intercession for the transgressors.

Quote:
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many [not all] for the remission of sins.

Quote:
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many [not all].”

 

The pattern I'm seeing with your threads is dishonesty and down right rudeness. Yes, some of my comments get edited...but so do some of yours and Pastor Larry's. We are all humans, so don't try to pin the "bad guy" label on only me.

Yes I do. That's not what you said, though. You said I denied election.

You're right, He can sovereignly do what He wants. Scripture doesn't teach us that He sovereignly chooses people for salvation, though, so I also deny that. Your systematic theology does.

 

And you thought I meant what by "election"? What other type of election do Calvinists believe and Arminians/Pelagians/Open Theists deny?
Again I ask:

 

Everyone of these verses are in the context of having been APPLIED or to those whom it WILL BE applied. The whosoevers...

Let us look at your Isa quote:

NOTE: Jesus is despised and rejected OF MEN (MANKIND) and continues this course of understanding by using "we"and "our". [He is despised of men - and - "we" hid our faces from Him; He was dispised. "we" esteemed Him not]
This is whom Isaiah is speaking of. (all man)

Umm... I guess that is just what it means huh??

Justify many, bear (carry or take away) their iniquities, bear the sin of many...
These are specific to the application of atonement in which sin is removed or carried away, and a person or people justified before God known as redeption.

This again, refers the application of the shed blood and it purpose of application. If He did not shed His blood then those whom will and would believe will still carry or bear their sins. But Christ is the one who will bear or carry away thier sins.

The Greek displays this a little differently than you are intending it.
The gist is more like the One did not come to be served [by the many (all others)] but came to serve [the many (all others)]
and just as the One came to serve, He came to give His life a ransom for those same He came to serve.
Jameison,Faust and Brown (who are Calvinist in thier soterology) in their Commentaries state much the same:

But there is another which speaks to that Ransom being offered up for all:

But only those who receive His atonement made on their behalf will actually BE Ransomed.

 

Scripture

I agree with the scripture, but Jesus opened the door for the world and made you the messenger of it.

Will you be His messenger?

 

Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14. Limited atonement is proved. Jesus did not die for Eli's house.

Eli's house was part of the world and the door was slammed in their faces. Jesus did not atone for the sins of everyman and you refuse to acknowledge this fact even though God swore an oath that no atonement would be given for them. What sort of message do you think I would listen to from you psalms?

Simple contradiction. Yes and no, sweet and sour, black and white in 13 words.
The truth is you do not believe in limited atonement, is that not true?

john.

 

Jesus

Jesus has opened the door for all men.

Believers are born again and not the house of eli any more.

Don't you want to praise God for that.

 

limited atonement

Yes I believe in limited atonement.

John 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.