How do these verses on God's love compare to you?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by whetstone, Aug 9, 2005.

  1. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jhn 3:16 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.

    1Jo 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    God chose to love a sinful fallen UNBELIEVING World - to send HIs Son as the Savior for the World (1John 4:14).

    How much MORE should we then be willing to sacrifice for BELIEVERS.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    For believers only, Bob, what happened to the view that we shall mourn the lost throughout eternity?

    Ok, just kidding, pulling the thread off topic.

    These vss. compare, in John 3:16, many attach universal love to all humans; in 1 John 3:16, the Apostle, still under divine inspiration, makes that love of God particular.

    May God Bless,
    Bro. Dallas
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    God chose to love a sinful UNBELIEVING World. "God so LOVED the WORLD that HE GAVE"...

    Without God FIRST LOVING and GIVING - there are NO believers. So what did God love?? UNBELIEVERS!

    The circular argument of Calvinism is that FIRST God Loved BELIEVERS then HE GAVE...

    There is no such thing as BELIEVERS BEFORE God Loves the WORLD or GIVES - so that WHOSOEVER may BELIEVE and be saved. This is the big grand canyon sized flaw in Calvinisms solution for John 3.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong Bob,
    Whosoever isn't in the text. It is "those believing" will not perish....

    That is particular. Does everyone believe? No.
    He gave His son so "those believing" will not perish.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    If Calvinism has some way to propose that PRIOR to God "giving His Son" and PRIOR to God "SO LOVING the WORLD" there were BELIEVERS and UNBELIEVERS on earth so that He could choose to JUST love the believers --

    It has yet to be shown.

    Rather it is a circular Argument employed in Calvinism that can not be shown to be true in scripture, or reason.

    Do you have a quote from me saying "We shall mourn the lost throughout eternity"?

    I think that is another point that the Calvinist group here can not find in "print, post or reason".

    That is the unproven assertion of Calvinism in a failed logic that thinks of "Believers" existing prior to the Love of God.

    In Christ,

    Bob

    May God Bless,
    Bro. Dallas [/QB][/QUOTE]
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother Bob,

    Did God exist before the world was?

    If so, by what counsel did He bring forth all His works known to Him since the foundation of the earth?

    May God Bless,
    Bro. Dallas
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is really really simple. "God so LOVED that HE GAVE" -- there is no supposition that God "GAVE and then discovered that HE so loved".

    The sequence is clear - the LOVE of God was FIRST and the condition of a doomed FALLEN sinful race was what CALLED out to that LOVING God -- to ACT to "GIVE" such that "WHOSOEVER BELIEVES should have everlasting life".

    He had to FIRST LOVE and GIVE to an UNSAVED, UNBELIEVING "While we were yet sinners" human race.

    The circular argument that Calvinism tries on that sequence is unworkable so it needs those who appeal to that argument to avoid a review of the logic it uses.

    Exposing that circular argument that is employed by Calvinism to bend John 3 to its usages is the utter collapse of 4 and 5 point Calvinism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. That the “World might be saved” – God sent His Son “INTO the WORLD”. It is the same world that God wants to save.
    #2. The sequence is that God FIRST “So LOVED” a fallen sinful world of unsaved “UNBELIEVERS” that HE GIVES – Christ to save us “As the Savior of the World” 1John 4:14
    #3. ONLY in the context of God’s choice to LOVE unbelievers “While we were yet sinners” (Romans 5) can there even BE such a thing as a “believer”.

    #4. Calvinism hopes to rework the text to its usages such that “God so Loved BELIEVERS that He Gave …” But there could BE NO believers with God first Loving AND giving. The sequence in John 3 is clear. God sees the problem of the fallen human race and sovereignly CHOOSES to love this fallen, sinful world. It matters not that God “sees” it before it ever happens. The point is that God is responding in Love to the fallen planet of humanity and would never see a bunch of “believing saints” as the “group” to THEN LOVE and out of that Love to GIVE!

    #5. The circular logic of Calvinism says “God so loved the FEW BELIEVERS that He Gave” presumes that there are first “A FEW believers” (the FEW of Matt 7) and THEN God decides to LOVE them – and out of that Love God decides to GIVE Christ.
     
  10. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro dallas hit the nail on the head and really hammered home what i was aiming at. So many people like to quote John 3:16, but why do they ignore 1 John 3:16 in the process? It was written by the same guy!
     
  11. Bible Student

    Bible Student
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro Dallas or whetstone,

    Would you expound on 1 John 3:16 please?

    Thanks,
    Richard [​IMG]
     
  12. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish you knew Greek Bob, you wouldn't have these wrong understandings....

    It is not "the ones believing NOW" but it is in the present ACTIVE nominative. The phrase denotes He gave His son so that "ALL believing (present and continuing into the future) ones will not perish... That means everyone who will believe. And THAT excludes those who do not and will not believe. It is a very PARTICULAR.
     
  14. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure. 1 John 3:16 is one of 3 'sister' verses I would say explain John 3:16 more fully. Here is 1 John 3:16 again:

    Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.

    Notice first of all that we are to lay our lives down for the brethren. This is in comparison to Christ laying down his life for us. The verse does NOT say that we are to lay down our lives for EVERYONE- but the brethren in particular. So our love and self-sacrifice for the brethren mirrors Christ's love and self-sacrifice for the elect. The brethren perceive our love for them when we lay down our lives for them, just as we perceive Christ's love for us when we perceive he has laid down his life for us. Let's look at the other two verses I was referring to. They are just one chapter later in 1 John.

    1Jo 4:9,10 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

    The wording of verse 9 is almost identical to that of John 3:16- yet 1 John 4:9 is NEVER quoted by arminians. Why? Because it is very particular that Christ loved US and was sent into the world that WE might live through him- and that Christ was sent to be the propitiation for OUR sins.

    Cutting John 3:16 from scripture may work in a gospel presentation, but it sure doesn't work to establish good coherant doctrine. Why not compare scripture with scripture?
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #5. The circular logic of Calvinism says “God so loved the FEW BELIEVERS that He Gave” presumes that there are first “A FEW believers” (the FEW of Matt 7) and THEN God decides to LOVE them – and out of that Love God decides to GIVE Christ.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I wish you would consider the obvious circular argument Calvinism SUPPOSES by INSISTING that God was CHOOSING that end-product group of believers to LOVE and then SAVE - when in fact nothing of the kind was presented to God to LOVE and to SAVE!!

    God looking into the future of a lost and fallen world would see that they are all LOST and FALLEN for all of time!!!

    They don't BECOME believers EVER - without God FIRST LOVING and then SAVING!!

    Get it!!

    Not "EVER".

    God had to SO LOVE that LOST world - LOST for ALL ETERNITY - and THEN had to CHOOSE to GIVE to SACRIFICE for that Lost World - lost for ALL eternity.

    The question is - would HE give AND FORCE all to accept His gift - or would He GIVE and also PROTECT the boundaries of FREE WILL with the result that SOME would accept while others would reject?

    But the idea that God SEES a world of BELIEVERS and then CHOOSES to LOVE them - is totally circular logic employed by Calvinism to downsize the Gospel.

    This is so blantantly obvious. I just can't believe that "once again" Calvinism has to struggle with the fact that the light of day is exposing this point in its model!!

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    *********

    James this issue of John 3:16 is where you and other 3 point Calvinists seem to agree and it is where I agree with you.

    My point is that those who REJECT this Love of God for the UNFALLEN unsaved UNBELIEVING and doomed world (yes that would be the entire world apart from the Gospel) is what caused Him to sovereignly CHOOSE to GIVE His Son to PROVIDE the Gospel.

    The PROBLEM He sees is a LOST world - lost for all of time. The only thing to "so LOVE" is that one sinful race -- they don't "get better" over time. They are just all lost!

    And since you seem to see that point clearly - I affirm your position on this and also that of the other 3 point Calvinists that agree with you.

    Still the point about the circular argument that has to be employed in John 3 by those who reject the Love of God for the World - is the point I am trying to highlight.

    However as John 1 points out - though we see rejection of Christ's "gift" we ALSO see acceptance of it.

    And the same is pointed out in Romans 2 "in the context" of the goodness of God that leads all, convicts all, draws all to repentance STILL the result is that some are saved and some lost as Romans 2 points out, as John 1 points out and as John 3 points out "That whosoever believes SHOULD NOT perish".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Calvinized redefinition of the term "WORLD" in scripture.

    It is often claimed by some Calvinists that "The WORLD" is SAVED and the "WHOLE WORLD" goes to heaven since they want to claim that "WHOLE WORLD" in 1John 2:2 (for which Christ is the Atoning Sacrifice NIV) is to be calvinized to a defintion that limits the term "Whole World" to "just the saved".

    I will concede this - that the Term WORLD in the NT can either be specifc to JUST THE LOST or to BOTH the saved and the LOST.

    But I have not seen one case to support the Calvinist claim that sometimes the WORLD means "JUST the SAVED".

    Do we have a Calivnist who could objectively SHOW some precidence for the strained usage they try to make out of 1John 2 and "WHOLE WORLD" by showing ANY case in all of the NT where "WHOLE WORLD" means "JUST the SAVED".

    Even one?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. rc

    rc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOVE and then SAVE - when in fact nothing of the kind was presented to God to LOVE and to SAVE!!


    Yes He can, and did. It's called election and predestination.

    Couldn't "love before hand" ? wrong Bob.

    For those God "foreknew" He predestined.

    The word foreknew literally means to for"love".
    To choose to love BEFOREhand. Before anybody was BORN. Even before BEING BORN, Jacob I have LOVED.

    Your tampering with open theism Bob, be careful.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The text "says" - "God so LOVED the WORLD" -- that would be an unbelieving world - FALLEN world, SINFUL race of humanity that is NOT BELIEVING anything and NEVER WILL --

    that HE GAVE His only Son which is the heart of the GOSPEL and the "goodness of God" without which there could never EVER BE "BELIEVERS".


    The circular argument that first "God so Loved BELIEVERS" that He then "GAVE His only Son" is that failed argument of Calvinism.

    It is so obvious, and clear -- that the only way around it is --- obfuscation and misdirection.

    And to your credit you seem to see that much of the point as you have left the "inconvenient" details of John 3 in your posts now...

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you want to use the Romans 8 argument of the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God (forgeting that FIRST God must SO LOVE... that He SO GIVES -- since this does not help Calvinism at all) then fine.

    In that model God FOREKNOWS the results of ALL that He has done (done because He FIRST "So LOVED") and in SEEING that future where Gospel EXISTS and the "So Loving" HAS resulted in the coming of Christ "As Light in to the world that enlightens EVERYONE of mankind" - God ALSO SEES who will believe.

    But that is VERY different than the FIRST starting point of John 3 which argues that in the beginning God SEES the fallen world and then SO LOVES that He GIVES... And that GIVING results in the GOSPEL solution which some accept and some reject.

    His looking into the future and SEEING who will accept AFTER He has "SO GIVEN" is NOT what is pointed out in John 3:16.

    In John 3:16 we see the basis of His SO GIVING - is that He SEES a lost and fallen race of humanity doomed -- FOREVER doomed and NEVER believing --- it is THAT world that He "So loves" and so then chooses to GIVE resulting in the GOSPEL that SOME accept and some reject.

    Obviously.

    The point of John 3 is so innescapable I am surprised that a 4 or 5 point Calvinist would agree to discuss it without ignoring "The details".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...