How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

What puzzles me is someone who jumps ino a thread, comments on it, but refuse to answer some of the questions about his comments. And when he does he intentionally remains vague. If one is tired of the topic why take part at all ?

 

You said this in response to my post. Show me the semantical tricks I played in my post.

 

Three things:

1. I did tell you, as you said.
2. You don't understand, but haven't told me what you don't understand.
3. What is between Calvinism and Arminianism, between God unconditionally elects to salvation and God doesn't unconditionally elect? I have asked so many times, and have yet to find someone who can tell me what this middle ground is between God elects unconditionally and God does not elect unconditionally. (I guess I don't understand that either.)

 

No, not salvation as a whole, but only the part of the salvation process called regeneration. And regeneration's relationship to faith is a little like a sprained ankle's relationship to pain. Pain is evidence of a sprained ankle just as faith is evidence of being born again, but they occur in an instant, timewise.

Justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification--elements of the process of salvation--all comes through faith.

Well, it is certainly a work or fruit of the Spirit, and it comes to us as part of the process of salvation, but it is also necessary for us to believe in order to be justified, adopted, sanctified, glorified, etc.

 

Total depravity - Man is incapable of coming to God on his own.
Unconditional Election - I think it IS conditional. Those who are in Christ are the elect. You need to be in Christ. That's a condition.
Limited Atonement - Not the way you believe it. Scripture makes it clear you are wrong.
Irresistable Grace - You admitted it yourself. Grace is resistable.
Perseverance of the Saints - I believe in the Eternal Security of the Believer.

I am trying to become a Calvinist. I have told many of your reformed brethren this. I just need you guys to "build that bridge" and I'll come right on over. You have yet to do it. But please keep trying.

 

Pastor Larry,
It is sort of like being a little pregnant. :laugh:

 

Once you are regenerated, it is impossible that you would not have faith. In fact, in your view, the faith comes almost simultaneously with, but after regeneration. It just seems like faith is a bit of a formality in your view.

 

yes.

Theologically, that makes you an arminian. (Nowhere in Scripture are the elect defined by being "in Christ" after the fact.).

What do I believe about it? Perhaps starting there will help us to understand whether or not you know what you are talking about.

Yes, and as I said, that is not really what "Irresistable grace" is about. Every single Calvinist agrees with me on this point.

Perserverance of the saints and eternal security are not the same thing though Calvinists believe both.

In my experience, it's not really something "try." For me, it was the result of coming face to face with Scripture and refusing to try to find something in it.

it's not my job to build a bridge. I simply teach the Scriptures and evangelize with the gospel. The truth is there.

 

==God's drawing of the elect to Himself is not resistable. The Bible is very clear that all the Father has given to Jesus "WILL" come to Jesus (Jn 6:37a, Rom 8:29-39, etc). This is really the "natural" result of unconditional election. If God elects a person then that person will come to Christ otherwise God would have made a mistake or proven Himself weak.

==Let's note the difference between "eternal security" and the final "perseverence of the saints". These are really two different, but closely related, doctrines.

Charles Ryrie defines eternal security as "the work of God which guarantees that the gift of God (salvation), once received, is possessed forever and cannot be lost" ("So Great Salvation" pg144). This is the same definition of eternal security used by Charles Stanley in his book "Eternal Security Can You Be Sure" and in his sermon series (of the same name). While I agree that salvatioin, once recieved, cannot be lost I do not believe that Ryrie's definition of eternal security goes far enough. In fact I believe that it allows for a serious doctrinal error. For example Ryrie states, on pg 130, that "a believer may come to the place of not believing, and yet God will not disown him, since He cannot disown Himself". Charles Stanley is a bit more blunt when he states "faith is simply the way we say yes to God's free gift of eternal life...God does not require a constant attitude of faith in order to be saved - only an act of faith" (pg80). Stanley is even more blunt about this throughout his sermon series (by the same title). The serious doctrinal error should be clear. The doctrine of "eternal security" or "once saved, always saved" teaches that a person can cease to believe and still be a believer (ie...an unbelieving believer). This is not Scriptural in the least. The Bible teaches that it is Jesus Christ who is the "author and perfector of faith" (Heb 12:2) and that God will finish what He started in the believer's life (Phil 1:6). The Bible warns about those who turn away, stating clearly that they were not really saved (1Jn 2:19, Rev 21:8, Jn 8:31, Col 1:21-23, etc).

The "perseverance of the saints" is best defined as follows:

"Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall, through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation." (Southern Baptist Abstract)

The Baptist Philadelphia Confession of 1742 gives a more detailed explanation of the doctrine...CLICK HERE

This is the doctrine that best fits the teaching of Scripture.

 

LOL... I love it when people say you twist something but never states where it was twisted nor why!

You are right however - that there are none that seek after God. However, IF LEFT TO THEMSELVES (God not being involved)... none will seek after him. Please keep things in context and stop pulling verses out of context. The part about being spiritually blinded IN CONTEXT does not refer to the whole world but Israel as a Nation due to Gods Judgment upon them for their - guess what - UNBELIEF. YET, we find thousands of Jews coming to Christ. So were they blind and deaf completely - no but only to Christ as a Nation.

Yet scripture does say or does it lie - they hear, then believe, THEN come into Life as they are passed at that moment of salvation from death unto life and not Life unto Life.

BTW - What I gave in John 1:12-13 was a literal reading that was word for word so I believe theologically it is called exegesis. And being that I allowed the words to define itself and its functional process, I do believe that to is considered proper exegisis. You may not like it but without proper refute it still stands without error.

I have not heard your exegsis of the same verses nor how 12 and 13 corrispond one with another in continuous thought holding continuous contextual harmony by NOT taking them literally but instead superimposing redefined definitions that are not actually scripturally applied nor implied (such as born again means being made alive but not that one is saved)

Regeneration is used only twice in scripture and is NEVER used to describe anything BEFORE one is saved but in each instance it specific to that aspect AFTER salvation.

You seem to hold to half of the truth where Paul was stating that man of himself without God they can not come to him. But you fail to that truth the other half which adds the aspect which Paul explained that once God enters the picture man CAN come to God. And that God is now dealing with the world (Gentiles and Jews alike) Not just special ones but ALL.

This is also why I showed even John Calvin believed this and even showed it from his own commentaries.

 

I have noticed that no one has delt with what John Calvin himself states about John 3:16.

If Calvin doesn't hold to the present day Calvinist interpretation why do the Calvinists still hold to it. That God is actaully offering everyone eternal life and that God shows himself reconciled to the WHOLE World by inviting ALL without exception to faith in Christ.

This flies in the face of present day Calvinistic doctrine specific or limited atonement. That God offers atonment or salvation ONLY to his elect.

 

==John 3:16 does not address the issue of election. John 3:16 is a simple statement that whoever believes the Gospel is saved. Who are those who believe? The elect (Jn 6:37, 17:2, etc).

 

Yes, because being regenerated means we are new creatures, and new creatures--to copy Pastor Larry's description--breath the air of the new life. And the breath of the new life, if you will, is faith. New creatures depend on Christ and trust in him for the sustainance of their new life.

I'd say it comes immediatly with regeneration, but regeneration is the cause of it.

Faith is just as much of a formality to maintaining our spritual life as breathing is to maintaining our physical life.

 

Allan , I have told you before that Calvin updated his Institutes several times . His fith and last edition was in 1559 , six years before his death . He did not "mature" his thoughts on predestination .

Calvin wrote " A Treatise On The eternal Predestination Of God " , shortly before his death in 1564 . He particularly took issue with Albertus Pighius & co. There's a book with Calvin's arguments and the words of his opponents . It's called : Calvin's Calvinism . The translator is Henry Cole .

The fiction of Pighius is puerile and absurd , when he interprets grace to be God's goodness in inviting all men to salvation , though all were lost in Adam . For Paul most clearly separates the foreknown from those on whom deigned not to look in mercy ... He ( pighius0 holds fast the fiction that grace is offered equally to all , but that it is ultimately rendered effectual by the will of man , just as each one is willing to receive it . (p.49-51)

That the Gospel is , in its nature , able to save all I by no means deny . But the great question lies here : Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men ? it is quite manifest that all men , without difference or distinction , are outwardly called or invited to repentance and faith . It is equally evident that the same Mediator is set forth before all , as he who alone can reconcile them to the father . But it is fully well known that none of these things can be understood or perceived but by faith , in fulfillment of the apostle Paul's declaration that 'the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth', then what can it be to others but the 'savour of death unto death' as the same apostle elsewhere powerfully expresses himself . (p.93-950

 

Well, for one thing, Calvinists don't follow Calvin. They don't believe something because Calvin did.

For another, I don't disagree with what Calvin said, so I felt no need to deal with that quote of Calvin.

Calvinist believe that the offer of salvation is indiscriminate.

If you read enough of Calvin, you'll understand that he doesn't mean by this that God is actually reconciled to every person who has ever lived. Calvin believed that God reconciled the world, but that there were people in the world to whom he was not reconciled. For example, read Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2 where he denies that the propitiation extends to the reprobate.

Calvinists believe that God invites all without exception to faith in Christ.

No Calvinists I know believe that God offers salvation only to his elect. God saves the elect, but the offer is indiscriminate.

 

Why is that important? Do you really believe that Calvinists follow Calvin? Calvinists are Calvinists because of what we believe the Scripture teaches, not because of what Calvin teaches, or taught, or supposedly taught.

Because Calvinists don't follow Calvin; they follow Scripture.

Calvinists believe this.

Study what "reconciled" means and the way it is used. This is a very interesting study in light of 2 Cor 5, Col 1, and other passages.

This is technically incorrect. He does not "invite" all to faith; he commands all to believe. And he does so without exception and without distinction.

You have conflated a few things here. First, specific or limited atonement has nothing to do with the offer of salvation. Second, salvation is offered to all, not only to the elect. Third, atonement or salvation is not the same thing. Fourth, the issue of limited atonement deals with a couple of things: 1) the definition and nature of atonement; 2) the intent or design of the atonement.


As we are accustomed to, Russell55 has given a great response.

 

Allan, we have gone over this time and time again. I really don't want to do it again. I'll make it short.

To say that simply because verse 12 of John 1 comes before verse 13 means that you have to believe before being born again, I think is twisting scripture. Allan, if you have to believe before being born again, that is an exercise of the will. Men are not born again by the will of man, but of God. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

You really think that is only being writen to Jews? It was in the OT, but it was being referenced here in Romans to Jew and Gentile. Do I really have to supply the scripture for proof?

Quote:
Jhn 5:24 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Allan, those who hear already have everlasting life, they have been born again (passed from death unto life) (They were not born of the will of man but God.) Any way you look at it, this verse of scripture is not saying that you have to believe before being born again. Keep trying Allan.

I'm not going to show you again where one who believes, do so because they are born of God, not the will of man.

Regeneration is being born again. Again, one is born again of God, not man (John 1:13)

Yes, God enters the picture when He causes one to be born again. (Born of God)

I don't follow John Calvin, I follow the Word of God.

 

Do you call yourself a Baptist?

 

No it doesn't. "Calvinism" existed long before it became known by Calvin's name.

I would prefer to call myself a biblicist, but too many people do not know what that means. Calvinism is the name historically given to those who believe certain things that the Bible teaches about salvation, just as every label serves as a kind of shorthand for a set of beliefs. We follow only Scripture and would prefer that we be called biblicists. Will you help us attain that?