How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I agree. The other posts confuse me. My reason for asking about John 3:16 is if Jesus came to save the world, how can someone say He came for only the ones chosen by God before time? I know that not everyone will be saved as some will reject the Savior, but it seems as though God offers salvation to everyone, not just a few. Just like the serpent on the pole in the wilderness.. whoever looked upon it was saved, whoever did not look perished. It was their choice. It seems to me that Calvinism removes any choice by humans to accept or reject the Savior. If this is the case, when an unchosen person stands before God in the judgement and is asked to give an account, how can they be judged guilty of something they had no control over. It's like if I were to chose members for a team. Some I choose, some I reject. Later on I ask one who had been rejected, "why weren't you on the team?" They would answer, "because I was rejected, I couldn't be on the team, I had no choice." The only way we can be judged guilty of rejecting the Savior is if we had a choice to begin with.

You bring in a very good biblical example which is included by Christ in Ch 3 as well. They had to choose to look upon the brass serpent. This argument about whether or not men use their will is human reasoning. Man can use all the will he wants to but if Gods authority and power are not the provider of salvation mans will is irrelevent. It is not about an act but about He who has the power to provide it. That is the intent of v. 13 in the forst ch. The power to become the sons of God is given to them that believe. It is given by Him who has it to give. That is who gets the credit. Our will deserves no merit even though God requires it.

 

[gb93433]

The verb in Jn 3:16 is loved. The verb in Jn 1:12 is received

 

[gb93433]

You bring in a very good biblical example which is included by Christ in Ch 3 as well. They had to choose to look upon the brass serpent. This argument about whether or not men use their will is human reasoning. Man can use all the will he wants to but if Gods authority and power are not the provider of salvation mans will is irrelevent. It is not about an act but about He who has the power to provide it. That is the intent of v. 13 in the forst ch. The power to become the sons of God is given to them that believe. It is given by Him who has it to give. That is who gets the credit. Our will deserves no merit even though God requires it.

Salvation is secure and secured in Jesus Christ.

 

[russell55]

To be born again prior to belief makes the cross useless.

Christ death is the entire grounds for salvation to a Calvinist. We are justified because the cross is applied to us, and our sins are punished in Christ and Christ's perfect obedience is counted as ours. Faith, for a Calvinist, is the vehicle or or instrumental means through which salvation comes.

The reformed argument is that if man must believe prior to salvation then it is a works based faith as some action was necessary on the part of man in order to be saved.

No, the argument is that if faith is the grounds for our salvation (in other words, if the reason we are saved is because we have faith, or if faith is the determining factor in our salvation) then faith is a work. The word reason or grounds refer to the merit or demerit on which something we obtain is based. If faith is the reason for our salvation, then it is partial grounds for it, and thus a work.

Salvation is based on the work of the cross and no other work.

Correct.

Mans belief prior to salvation does not in fact add more works to the equation.

If man's faith is the hinge on which salvation turns, or the reason one person is saved and not another, then belief is the grounds of salvation, and thus a work. If salvation is solus Christus, or in Christ alone, then whatever role faith plays in salvation, it cannot be the grounds for it. Faith can be the how of salvation, but not the why of salvation. In other words, the answer to the question "How were you saved?" is "through faith," but the answer to the question "Why were you saved?" cannot be "because I believed." The answer to "Why were you saved?" must always be "Because of Christ's death and because of Christ's death alone."

the credit for salvation does not go to man regardless of any action on his part.

The credit for salvation does not to to man because man does nothing credit worthy in his salvation. Anything credit worthy is done by Christ on the cross, and faith is simply an acknowledgement that "I can do nothing, and my only hope is in Christ's work."

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Salvation is secured in accepting the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross. You cannot get to salvation without going through the cross.

 

[russell55]

My reason for asking about John 3:16 is if Jesus came to save the world, how can someone say He came for only the ones chosen by God before time?

I don't think that anyone disagrees that one of the purposes of Christ coming was to save the world. We just disagree on exactly what that means. It seems, if I understand you correctly, that you believe that Christ came intending to save every single person who had ever lived. If that is the case, then Christ is not going to accomplish what he intended. And furthermore, that would mean that he came to save people who had already died rejecting God.

As a Calvinist, I believe the way God saves his creation (or the world)--the way he sums up everything in Christ and does away with all the ruinous effects of the fall--is by redeeming a people for himself, recreating them into a holy nation, and making a new heaven and a new earth for them to live forever in.

I know that not everyone will be saved as some will reject the Savior, but it seems as though God offers salvation to everyone, not just a few.

Calvinists don't disagree with this.

Just like the serpent on the pole in the wilderness.. whoever looked upon it was saved, whoever did not look perished.

No disagreement here either.

It was their choice. It seems to me that Calvinism removes any choice by humans to accept or reject the Savior.

No, it's just that Calvinist's acknowledge that left to their own devices, people reject the Saviour.

If this is the case, when an unchosen person stands before God in the judgement and is asked to give an account, how can they be judged guilty of something they had no control over.

They will be judged quilty on the grounds of their sin. They didn't obey God or their consciences. And they do have control over that. They freely choose to sin.

It's like if I were to chose members for a team. Some I choose, some I reject.

No, it's as if every one hates you as coach, and says they'd rather rot than join your team.

Later on I ask one who had been rejected, "why weren't you on the team?" They would answer, "because I was rejected, I couldn't be on the team, I had no choice."

No, they'd have to say, "because I hated the coach, and so I rejected that team."

The only way we can be judged guilty of rejecting the Savior is if we had a choice to begin with.

Everyone does have a choice, and everyone rejects God. That's the natural condition of all humankind.

 

[Amy.G]

Everyone does have a choice, and everyone rejects God. That's the natural condition of all humankind.

We all sin, but we don't all reject God.

 

[russell55]

We all sin, but we don't all reject God.

Part of the indictment of the whole human race--part of the proof that all have sinned-- is that no one seeks God, but rather all have turned away from him. (Romans 3)

Ephesians 2 says that everyone is by nature an object of God's wrath, and that we all were following Satan, and if that isn't a rejection of God, I don't know what is.

And sin in general, is, at it's core, a rejection of God. We don't obey, because we don't accept God's authority over us. All of the law rests on commandment #1, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God...." Breaking any of the commandments is also breaking the command to love God and serve only Him. We are all, naturally, law breakers, and that means we're God-rejecters.

 

[russell55]

Salvation is secured in accepting the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

No, salvation is secured by the redeeming work of Jesus Christ alone. The security of our salvation does not depend on us, but Christ.

You cannot get to salvation without going through the cross.

We are saved through the cross alone, but we don't "get to" salvation. Salvation comes to us. We recieve it, we rest in it, we trust, but we don't "get to".

 

[psalms109:31]

jonah and the fish

I see many wanting to go the opposite way that God wants them to go, and wrestling with God. We all know that God works through man. If man does not go out and do what God has called us to do. No one will come to God, unless we go..

We must bring the right message out, that Jesus Christ sent us out to preach.

Many have miss understood Paul like they have other scriptures. They want to to enter into elect through being the elect instead of through faith entering the elect of God.

When I was 4, 5 or 6, the only thing i understood of the Gospel was that the creator of the world loved me. I didn't love God because of Jesus, but because He loved me. When I was that age I use to pray to God to make me superman, so I can change the world me the the cheif of sinners.

When I was eleven God introduced me to His Son and helped me understand Jesus and that He already sent the savior, the savior men don't want to give to the world.

They might turn to God to be healed. If God wanted to take off the veil over our eyes and force us to believe He would, but God is not going to remove it, only Jesus can. So you are going to have to trust in Him. You do not have to understand just believe Jesus, and He will open your eyes

 

[JamesBell]

OK, I thought I had this Calvinist thing all worked out. But now I am confused again. This argument makes no sense. We are saved before we believe, I am guessing that our being born again is why we are able to believe (in the Calvinist argument). Yet, not everyone will be born again, so they are not able to be saved.
How does this mesh with 2 Peter 3:9? ("...not will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance") To me, that simple comment makes the argument that some are chosen and others are not invalid.

 

[Rippon]

No one is saved before they believe ! We are able to believe because we were elected - belief is a fruit of election . I don't know where your take of 2 Peter 3:9 has to do with this . If God does not want anyone to perish that would conflict with too many clear Scriptures where He has hardened hearts and blinded eyes so that they would not come to believe on Him .

 

[Amy.G]

Part of the indictment of the whole human race--part of the proof that all have sinned-- is that no one seeks God, but rather all have turned away from him. (Romans 3)

Ephesians 2 says that everyone is by nature an object of God's wrath, and that we all were following Satan, and if that isn't a rejection of God, I don't know what is.

And sin in general, is, at it's core, a rejection of God. We don't obey, because we don't accept God's authority over us. All of the law rests on commandment #1, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God...." Breaking any of the commandments is also breaking the command to love God and serve only Him. We are all, naturally, law breakers, and that means we're God-rejecters.

According to this statement, we are God-rejecters even after salvation because we still continue to sin, so none of us accepts God's authority, ever.

 

[Allan]

No one is saved before they believe ! We are able to believe because we were elected - belief is a fruit of election . I don't know where your take of 2 Peter 3:9 has to do with this . If God does not want anyone to perish that would conflict with too many clear Scriptures where He has hardened hearts and blinded eyes so that they would not come to believe on Him .

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.

Does this one help - I have many more :thumbsup:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Is believeing an act of the will? Yes. We are born again first, then we believe. John 1:13 Not of flesh or of blood or the will of man, but of God.

 

[webdog]

That is speaking of regeneration. Regeneration doesn't happen UNTIL one believes in Christ. How can someone be "in Christ"...prior to being "in Christ"? Makes no sense.

 

[webdog]

No one is saved before they believe ! We are able to believe because we were elected - belief is a fruit of election . I don't know where your take of 2 Peter 3:9 has to do with this . If God does not want anyone to perish that would conflict with too many clear Scriptures where He has hardened hearts and blinded eyes so that they would not come to believe on Him .

This entire post is a nutshell of the errors of reformed theology.

1. Salvation outside of faith.
2. Faith is a result of salvation.
3. 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't really say what it says.
4. Unconditional reprobation.

 

[Allan]

Is believeing an act of the will? Yes. We are born again first, then we believe. John 1:13 Not of flesh or of blood or the will of man, but of God.

I believe I have delt with this verse in context before concerning BOTH verses of 12 AND 13, however vs 13 of itself is still a simple matter.

You keep highlighting the 'will of man' without explaining the verse as though this embolding clinches the matter. But jsut for better clarification I will also bring into this the three areas scripture states man sins in, Lust of the Eyes, Lust of the Flesh, and the Pride of Life along side this text.

John 1:13
Who were not Born (born again) of blood (lineage / lust of the eyes) nor of flesh (righeous works / lust of the flesh) nor of the will of man (Mental Pride ['I' can do it myself] / Pride of life) - but of God.

In essence "of himself or by himself man can not be saved without God.
Actually it is an infatic statement that man by himself can not save himself. Yet salvation is "of the Lord" as declared by God via the prophets and Holy men of God.

This is directly proportionate and in context with the preceding verse (12)
However to better illistrate this continuity I am going to use the same word that 13 uses to establish the link between the two verses and gives inherent context with the scripture.

That word is "Born" or also know as 'born again'.
Who were not born... - what constitutes this birth and is it simply bring back to life but not salvation?? OR is it life due TO salvation. I obviously hold the latter and this is why.

For as many as recieved Him to them He gave the right to be called the children of God, even to those who believe on His name

First, being "born" automatically places you into that family and establishes ALL rights and privilages therewith. This is the very reason that by being 'born' they ARE called the children of God.
Ok, let us also look at the pattern God has given us via John since we are already here: (2) To those who recieved Him (3) to THEM He gave... (4) those who believed... (takes us back to why God gave them the right to be called His children)

WHere did #1 go?? Well... without hearing there can be no faith so Hearing should be first, agreed??

If you will Note brother that God didn't 'give' first and then they 'recieved' but they recieved and therefore God 'gave' to them that right (birth) but vs. 13 shows us that it was not because man could do it himself but that without God man IS lost with no hope. YET, can one believe in Christ WHILE being dead in trespasses and sin BEFORE being born again. YEP! :

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.

NOTE: here as well is the same construct that John gives in chapter 1, 3, and now 5. That being (1) hear (2) believe (3) Life (born) (4) passed from death to life - Establishing what JUST happened.

This isn't a regenerated but unsaved person! The context here shows an unregenerate person who believed and THEN recieve eternal life (salvation) for they 'passed from death unto life". What makes it then and not earlier? Because it states: Has everlasting life AND will not come unto condemnation. It shows an event at that moment in time which changed relationship with God to them.

 

[Allan]

BTW - Here is the way John Calvin interpreted John 3:16 in his "Commentaries".

John Calvins Commentaries: (During the later years of his life Calvin wrote his commentaries, which reveal some development of thought, and in which he avoided some of the extremes found in the Institutes.)

John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.'' Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life

.''

 

[npetreley]

This entire post is a nutshell of the errors of reformed theology.

1. Salvation outside of faith.
2. Faith is a result of salvation.
3. 2 Peter 3:9 doesn't really say what it says.
4. Unconditional reprobation.

The above is an erroneous description of reformed theology. Reformed doctrine does not say faith is a result of salvation.