John 3:16 Study

[Van]

Talk about derailing a thread, did post #120 even address John 3:16? Nope, but bantered on about God being outside of time, the fiction of those who try to nullify scripture that shows God acts sequentially over "time" whether physical time (our realm) or spiritual time (His realm).

Returning to topic:Here is the interpretative translation of John 3:16:
God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone credited with righteous faith in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life.

This view makes clear Kosmos refers to humanity and not the planet. This view makes clear that Jesus was God incarnate. This view makes clear God decides whether to credit our faith as righteous faith or not. And if does credit our faith, He transfers us spiritually into Christ, thus we are made alive eternally together with Christ.

 

[JD731]

Wesley was not inspired and his view is not germane. They, soils #2,3 and 4 received the gospel. Full Stop. Jesus spoke in parables to prevent at that time those in His audience from understanding and being healed. Full Stop.

Matthew 13 is a prophecy of our Lord. It is this whole age laid out in 7 parables. It is likened to a season of sowing and reaping. It is the kingdom of God in it's mystery form while the King is away and his holdings is let out to stewards whom he appoints and who must give account of their stewardship at his return. The four soils is interpreted as a matter of the historic account as follows.

1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us (apostles), as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

1) Jerusalem
2) Judea
3) Samaria
4) Gentiles

I have tracked the stewards and I know this to be true.

Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

This is the same track that Jesus followed in the beginning of his ministry on earth.

1) Jerusalem = Jn 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
Jn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night,....

2) Judea = Jn 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

3) Samaria = Jn 4:3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. 4 And he must needs go through Samaria. 5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria,

4) Galilee of the Gentiles = Jn 4:3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. John 4:46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

 

[Van]

Matthew 13 is a prophecy of our Lord.saw the miracles which he did.
Jn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night,....
SNIP
.

Anorther long and needless non-germane post deflecting from John 3:16. Here JD731 tries to say Matthew 13 does not mean what it says, that if Jesus had not spoken in parables, some of the lost would have understood and been healed, thus they did not suffer from the fiction of total spiritual inability.

Folks, Romans 4 clearly teaches God credits the faith of some as righteous faith. Full Stop. To continue to claim people are unable to believe in God's revelation is ludicrous.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is definitely a doctrine of election in the scriptures but it is not anything like what you and your Reformed denominations teach. God has elected Jesus Christ in eternity before time and has chosen all those who believe in him and his work on their behalf, whom the Spirit of God places into the body of Christ, which he is forming in this age between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Day of the Lord. This is the truth about election. I can break it, true election, down into more details if you request it.

The problem with "election" with you guys that make it nothing more than "those who meet certain criteria or respond in a certain way" is that that is not election. Saying that God saw ahead of time all those who would do this or that is the opposite meaning of election. There has to be active choosing on the part of the one doing the electing or you don't use the word election. But because the word is found all over the Bible you have to do these kind of gyrations or you have to just accept it. God chose Abraham. How stupid it would be to suggest that God said "whoever is the first one to be willing to leave his father and move his own family to where I want him to - he's the one I will make a father of many nations". Abraham did that, and was willing, but God did the choosing first. That's all Calvinism claims. And nowhere does any Calvinist I have ever heard of, say that the cross is not the central theme of the salvation of anyone.

The statement that God has chosen all who believe in him and his work on their behalf is exactly what the High-Calvinist John Owen says and in fact he says THAT is the way and the only way we are authorized to claim that we personally are elect. Now I can give you the exact reference for that. Regarding John 3:16, there are Calvinists who get into the weeds trying to figure out what "world" actually means in the Greek or how exactly God loved the world or whether "so" or "begotten" should be there. But the fact is this: anyone who believes in Christ as shown in that verse gets saved. A Calvinist will say that they were "elect" or chosen before the beginning of time. I happen to agree with that. I also think they were lost up until the time they believed and some Calvinists don't see it that way but some do. The Calvinist confessions of faith were written to accommodate both positions.

 

[JD731]

Talk about derailing a thread, did post #120 even address John 3:16? Nope, but bantered on about God being outside of time, the fiction of those who try to nullify scripture that shows God acts sequentially over "time" whether physical time (our realm) or spiritual time (His realm).

Returning to topic:Here is the interpretative translation of John 3:16:
God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone credited with righteous faith in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life.

This view makes clear Kosmos refers to humanity and not the planet. This view makes clear that Jesus was God incarnate. This view makes clear God decides whether to credit our faith as righteous faith or not. And if does credit our faith, He transfers us spiritually into Christ, thus we are made alive eternally together with Christ.

Concerning John 3:16, I have told you everything I know to tell you and you have rejected it. What else do you want me to say about it? My advice to you at this point is to just wait until someone comes up with a better translation than the one you are touting now and give us a new and better lesson on John 3:16. Who would have ever thought there would be a new and better way to understand John 3:16?

 

[JD731]

The problem with "election" with you guys that make it nothing more than "those who meet certain criteria or respond in a certain way" is that that is not election. Saying that God saw ahead of time all those who would do this or that is the opposite meaning of election. 1) There has to be active choosing on the part of the one doing the electing or you don't use the word election. But because the word is found all over the Bible you have to do these kind of gyrations or you have to just accept it. God chose Abraham. How stupid it would be to suggest that God said "whoever is the first one to be willing to leave his father and move his own family to where I want him to - he's the one I will make a father of many nations". Abraham did that, and was willing, but God did the choosing first. That's all Calvinism claims. And nowhere does any Calvinist I have ever heard of, say that the cross is not the central theme of the salvation of anyone.

The statement that God has chosen all who believe in him and his work on their behalf is exactly what the High-Calvinist John Owen says and in fact he says THAT is the way and the only way we are authorized to claim that we personally are elect. Now I can give you the exact reference for that. Regarding John 3:16, there are Calvinists who get into the weeds trying to figure out what "world" actually means in the Greek or how exactly God loved the world or whether "so" or "begotten" should be there. But the fact is this: anyone who believes in Christ as shown in that verse gets saved. A Calvinist will say that they were "elect" or chosen before the beginning of time. I happen to agree with that. I also think they were lost up until the time they believed and some Calvinists don't see it that way but some do. The Calvinist confessions of faith were written to accommodate both positions.

The statement I have numbered 1).

How simply does God the Father need to state his criteria for election? I doubt he could make it any more understandable. I get it. God the Father elects all those whom the Spirit baptizes into the body of Christ. It is that simple. Jesus Christ was elected before the foundation of the world but there was no one in him at that event. Jesus Christ was not elected by God because he believed. He was elected of God because of divine counsel.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The mystery of his will is to form the church upon the testimony of Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, and he has purposed to do it by saving Jews first, then gentiles when they believe his gospel and by immersing them into the body of Christ, the church. Keeping this in the context of John 3:16, where one of the foundational doctrines one must believe about Jesus Christ is found, that he is the only begotten Son of God, before God will save him. This doctrine is under attack on this thread.

Here is as simple a statement on how gentiles are saved as I can produce from the scriptures to bear out what I have said;

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The beginning for gentiles is in Acts 10. How did God choose them according to the text? Two things that are simultaneous. One, sanctification of the Spirit. One is sanctified of the Spirit when the Spirit indwells him and upon his believing the truth. Nothing in scripture refutes this in this church age.Saved men are now functioning members of the church, the body of Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You will never know the truth by following the misplaced logic of the Reformed. I urge you to take another look.

 

[DaveXR650]

JD. There isn't anything you wrote above I wouldn't agree with. I just think that when people are hearing the gospel and getting saved that the truth behind that is that God not only had foreknowledge of what is going on but is exerting actual power by the Holy Spirit and of course we all would agree that he knew he was going to be doing this so it is foreordained. Reformed theology says God acts upon the will so people are indeed choosing to come to Christ. Are they doing this independently of God's unfolding plan? No.

Now there is no requirement I know of that you need to have a Calvinistic take on any of this to be a Christian. And your dispensational interpretation of things I partially agree with. I just haven't studied those things enough in recent years to be able to comment on them. I know there are some Calvinists on this site who have a bizarre way of explaining things and there are probably as many variations of Calvinism as there are on the free will side but you have been exposed to mistaken notions of Calvinism for sure.

You will never know the truth by following the misplaced logic of the Reformed. I urge you to take another look.

Spend a few years reading Owen and Bunyan and Lloyd-Jones and then seriously try to tell me that.

 

[percho]

Talk about derailing a thread, did post #120 even address John 3:16? Nope, but bantered on about God being outside of time, the fiction of those who try to nullify scripture that shows God acts sequentially over "time" whether physical time (our realm) or spiritual time (His realm).

Returning to topic:Here is the interpretative translation of John 3:16:
God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone credited with righteous faith in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life.

This view makes clear Kosmos refers to humanity and not the planet. This view makes clear that Jesus was God incarnate. This view makes clear God decides whether to credit our faith as righteous faith or not. And if does credit our faith, He transfers us spiritually into Christ, thus we are made alive eternally together with Christ.

A question seeking info and for no other purpose, just a honest question relative to Greek for as I have said many times I know, no Greek.

Had τὴν οἰκουμένην been used instead of τὸν κόσμον would there have been a theological difference?

 

[AustinC]

Returning to topic:Here is the interpretative translation of John 3:16:
God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone credited with righteous faith in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life.

The translation above is about as awful of a translation as anyone could ever make. It reminds me of this awful translation:
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”— John 3:16, New World Translation

 

[JD731]

Anorther long and needless non-germane post deflecting from John 3:16. Here JD731 tries to say Matthew 13 does not mean what it says, that if Jesus had not spoken in parables, some of the lost would have understood and been healed, thus they did not suffer from the fiction of total spiritual inability.

Folks, Romans 4 clearly teaches God credits the faith of some as righteous faith. Full Stop. To continue to claim people are unable to believe in God's revelation is ludicrous.

WOW, Van! I don't think I addressed the subject of total inability. However, I do understand the pivot point our Lord made at Matthew 13 which is a division of an intended literal and physical kingdom promised in the OT and "at hand" through the first 12 chapters into a mystery form of the kingdom that is mentioned nowhere until the Jewish rulers had rejected their Messiah and decided to put him to death in chapter 12.near the very end of his days on earth and at harvest time for that nation. This turned from a failed harvest season in Matt 12 because of few laborers to a new growing season in Matt 13. Following is a description of the first 12 chapters.

Lu 20:
9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent [him] away empty.
11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated [him] shamefully, and sent [him] away empty.
12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast [him] out.
13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence [him] when they see him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard [it], they said, God forbid.

The division.

17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

Lu 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]:
9 And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down.

The fig tree, a symbol of national Israel was cut down and removed in 70 AD by the Romans but because this mystery kingdom we read about in Matt 13 and forward was a worldwide kingdom, the removal of the fig tree from the vineyard did not end the mystery form of the kingdom although it did give it a gentile character for the last two millennium.

There are other parables of our Lord that bears on this truth and gives us light but this is enough for now. Sorry it is not about Jn 3:16 but I thought I should answer your charge here.

 

[JD731]

JD. There isn't anything you wrote above I wouldn't agree with. I just think that when people are hearing the gospel and getting saved that the truth behind that is that God not only had foreknowledge of what is going on but is exerting actual power by the Holy Spirit and of course we all would agree that he knew he was going to be doing this so it is foreordained. Reformed theology says God acts upon the will so people are indeed choosing to come to Christ. Are they doing this independently of God's unfolding plan? No.

Now there is no requirement I know of that you need to have a Calvinistic take on any of this to be a Christian. And your dispensational interpretation of things I partially agree with. I just haven't studied those things enough in recent years to be able to comment on them. I know there are some Calvinists on this site who have a bizarre way of explaining things and there are probably as many variations of Calvinism as there are on the free will side but you have been exposed to mistaken notions of Calvinism for sure.


Spend a few years reading Owen and Bunyan and Lloyd-Jones and then seriously try to tell me that.

Calvinism is summed up by the T.U.L.I.P., is it not? There is nothing true about the TULIP no matter who teaches it. Taking Jn 3:16 literally would be troublesome in that system, would it not?

 

[DaveXR650]

Calvinism is summed up by the T.U.L.I.P., is it not? There is nothing true about the TULIP no matter who teaches it. Taking Jn 3:16 literally would be troublesome in that system, would it not?

It is, for the purposes of this board. But the TULIP came after Calvin. In 1 minute you can plug in "Calvin on John 3:16" and you will discover that he did not mess with John 3:16 at all. The answer to your question is no, it need not be troublesome. But I admit, for the modern Calvinist who became a Calvinist listening to internet warriors it is a big problem and they mess with the verse to make it mean what they want.

The problem I think you would have with all types of Calvinism is based on the fact that in Calvinism, the idea is that man is not just a sinner but incapable on his own of truly changing his course and responding to God's offer. Once you are at the point of realizing that God will have to act directly on a person BEFORE they will come to Christ then the rest of Calvinism is not unreasonable. That's why I keep saying that if you pray to God to intervene in a persons heart in order that they may be saved you are on your way to becoming a Calvinist. If you don't, you are on your way to Pelagianism, which was condemned by everyone in the early church.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0430 hrs EST Sat/ 0130 hrs PST

 

[AustinC]

Calvinism is summed up by the T.U.L.I.P., is it not? There is nothing true about the TULIP no matter who teaches it. Taking Jn 3:16 literally would be troublesome in that system, would it not?

When you have lost the argument, you fall on TULIP to try change the subject. I don't think you even know what TULIP is an acronym for or what the passages are in scripture that make up the acronym. All you really know is there was a guy named Calvin and my pastor at my church doesn't like him.

 

[Salty]

I don't think you even know what TULIP is an acronym for or what the passages are in scripture that make up the acronym. ....

We have talked about TULIP many times in many threads:
Here is one for example

 

[JD731]

When you have lost the argument, you fall on TULIP to try change the subject. I don't think you even know what TULIP is an acronym for or what the passages are in scripture that make up the acronym. All you really know is there was a guy named Calvin and my pastor at my church doesn't like him.

Calvinism teaches one to believe in Jesus Christ while they teach him to do not believe what God the Father says about him. The New Testament scriptures is the record God has given of his Son.

John 3:16, the subject of this thread, is an excellent example of God giving assurance without limits that he will save whosoever will believe in his Son whom he sent out of his love for the whole world. Here is the quote from a trusted source of what God said;

Jn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.


16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Calvinists can read those words and see a limitation and teach that it is God himself in these verses who limits his salvation to someone who is not mentioned in the text. Those of his pre-world election to save.

Jesus Christ, sent by the Father, to reconcile the world unto God by paying the penalty for the sins of the whole world, which is the second death in the lake of fire, did not condemn the world. Here is proof;

I am quoting from the writings of the apostle to the gentiles, whom God purposely sent to the world;

2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.
17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us (the Jewish apostles and prophets) to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
1 We then, [as] workers together [with him], beseech [you] also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)
3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:

The difference between you and me, AustinC, is that I can process this information and you cannot because your religion blinds you to simple truths.

You deny the above statement of what Jesus did for the world. God has not imputed personal sins to anyone in the world because he punished Jesus Christ as sin. His justice was satisfied in him. His wrath was poured out on our substitute. Reconciliation is a two way proposition. Anyone in the world can come while they live, but there is a warning;

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Your religion says some will not come because they were not chosen while Jesus says they will not come because they love sin.

Note: the world in V 19 is Kosmos.

 

[Van]

A question seeking info and for no other purpose, just a honest question relative to Greek for as I have said many times I know, no Greek.

Had τὴν οἰκουμένην been used instead of τὸν κόσμον would there have been a theological difference?

Hi Percho, people who use Greek lettering without including either the transliteration or Strong's number appear to be attempting to make understanding difficult for their audience.

If Strong's G3625 (oikoumené: the inhabited earth) had been used in John 3:16, the verse might suggest God gave His Son so that lands inhabited by Greeks or possibly Greeks and Romans were to receive the gift, rather than all humanity. Thus when John used "oikoumené: the inhabited earth" he always used it in conjunction with "whole" to clarify complete extent rather than partial extent. See Revelations 3:10, 12:9 and 16:14.

However if the inspired word had read God loved the whole inhabited earth in this way..." the meaning would seem to me to be the same.

 

[Van]

The translation above is about as awful of a translation as anyone could ever make. It reminds me of this awful translation:
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”— John 3:16, New World Translation

Yet another insult post using the guilt by association fallacy.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0430 hrs EST Sat/ 0130 hrs PST

This thread is closed