JOHN 3:16, It's an eternal security text, not a way to get salvation.

First, it is NOT an eternal security text! Notice:

(John 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.

'Should' means that those who believe ought to be saved, but not that they will be. "He" however "that believes and is baptized SHALL be saved" -- interesting difference there isn't it?

This 'world' is the inhabited universe, the kosmos, and that includes everyone.

 

Originally posted by changed_like_saul:

Hmmmm, I wonder which world John the Baptist is speaking of that Christ rids of sin. Is it everyone that has ever lived and ever will live? In this verse the "world" under consideration is the same world which is in John 3:16. How do we know which "world" that is? Simple, it's found in Matthew.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

HE (Christ) shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins. This verse is plain. It says what it means and means what it says. Christ HAS a people and Christ SHALL save them from their sins. HIS people is the world under consideration in John 3:16.

So, we see each time the BIBLE uses the word world it does not mean everyone that has been born and everyone that will be born. We must keep all words in the context in which they are used, right?

That would be nice.

Jumping to Matthew to explain a word in John - how is that 'keeping a word in context'?

John probably wrote after Matthew.

Why did he write 'world' instead of 'his people'? he could easily have used Matthew's words had he wanted to.

Anyway how about this one:

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

What does 'whole world' mean?

 

The "whole world" cannot mean "everyone without exception" because God hates the wicked. Those whom God hates shall not be saved, because they will not repent, and God will not grant to them repentance.

In I Jn 2:2, the "whole world" probably refers to the whole world of the elect, including both Jews and Gentiles of every nation, tongue, and tribe, but not every individual.

It is obvious that men of every nation in the "whole world" have been saved, but certainly not every individual of every nation has been saved.

All for whom Christ died have been saved, and this fact is being revealed to them by the Spirit, in due time, causing them to repent and believe the good news of the Gospel. Thus, we can know those who have been saved, are being saved, and shall be saved in the End.

connieman

 

Originally posted by connieman:

The "whole world" cannot mean "everyone without exception" because God hates the wicked. Those whom God hates shall not be saved, because they will not repent, and God will not grant to them repentance.

Yes, but doesn't that describe everyone at one time?

How does God feel about the elect before they are saved, at that time? Are you saying that given two equally unsaved people, he loves one and hates the other because one is elect and one is not? Even though - so far - there's no difference between them?

Although, as I write this, you might be saying that, as I think of various passages about Jacob and Esau...but I'll let you clarify.

In I Jn 2:2, the "whole world" probably refers to the whole world of the elect, including both Jews and Gentiles of every nation, tongue, and tribe, but not every individual.

Say what you will...but, why didn't John clarify that?

All for whom Christ died have been saved, and this fact is being revealed to them by the Spirit, in due time, causing them to repent and believe the good news of the Gospel.

But they aren't saved yet...so, does God love them already, in their God-hating pre-salvation condition? In which - to us - they are totally indistinguishable from the non-elect?

Thus, we can know those who have been saved, are being saved, and shall be saved in the End.

Well, we can't really, can we? I'm not sure what you mean by this because gosh, we don't even know who are real Christians - as in, who will persevere to the end rather than fall away to a state of being so against God that it's very hard to see how they could be 'elect' after all. And yet at present we are sure they are...as best we can be...so we don't really know, do we? Only God knows...

 

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Christ became the propitiation for everyone, but not everyone accepts him, therefore, not everyone is saved. Why must you make it harder than it is? He died for all but all will not believe so all will not be saved.

Perhaps your misunderstanding is with the word propitiation - some translation render it "the atoning sacrifice for our sins" - just like the Passover lamb which once sacrificed DID NOT save anyone until the blood was PLACED ON THE DOOR, Christ's sacrifice saves no one until applied by faith - thus the old Calvinist argument that blood is wasted if there is a general election is hogwash. "There is a fountain filled with blood" - the blood does not dry up on the believer's heart - it does not perish with use - the fountain lasts forever and EVERYONE, whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved!

[ June 02, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

solascriptura...you are telling me that it is not the blood of Jesus itself that saves the sinner, but his own "decision" or acceptance of Jesus that saves him. Now, who is the saviour, Jesus or the sinner? Or is it both working together?

All of the wicked are sinners, but not all sinners are "the wicked." Only those sinners who do not repent are "the wicked." Other sinners are caused by God to repent, and they are made "the righteous", for Jesus sake and by the Grace of God. The wicked will be destroyed, but the righteous will enter into Paradise.

If salvation finally depends on man's "decision", then for most men, Christ died in vain. But it is the Holy Spirit Who applies the blood to the sinner's heart, and purifies him.

Under the Law, God said, "I will, if you will." But men would not. Under the Gospel, God says, "I will, and I will cause you to do my will, for the aake of My Son."

Things aren't as simple as you imagine, because, according to the prophets, sinners will not seek God, or call upon His name. What then?
They must first be transformed by the will of Gode, being "born again" of God. Then men wlll call upon the Name of the Lord. Jesus said, "Mo man can come unto me except it be given unto him of my Father. "But of Him(God) are ye in Christ Jesus..." It is God Who makes sinners believers, and not sinners themselves.

In Him, by the Grace and mercy of God Only.

connieman

[ June 02, 2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

I might tend to side with the Arminian brethren if it wasn't for one problem of interpretation. Part of the verse in question reads that whosoever believeth in him. The word believeth is past tense and no mattter how you interpret it, you can't change what it says without changing versions. The KJV says it, how we are suppose to understand it. To say whosoever will believe destroys the scripture because thats not what the scripture says. The one who believeth is already in the covenant of Grace... You can't put someone who doesn't belong there and you can't remove someone who does... Yet the Arminian brethren seem to do that at their descretion... I'm glad I worship a God that is not like that! What a great text among other texts on the eternal security of Gods blood bought children... Brother Glen

[ June 02, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

SolaScriptura said:He died for all but all will not believe so all will not be saved.

If he died for all why do you have to believe? You must believe in order to be saved? There is a contradiction here either he died for all or he didn't. Now you put a condition on that Salvation when the only condition was you were a sinner as the Apostle Paul declares. What you are implying is that my Salvation is determined by my acceptance or rejection of that Salvation which you claim we all have? How can I accept or reject something you told me I already have? This type of biblical interpretation doesn't make good nonsense!... Brother Glen

 

Propitiation has to do with the removal of God's wrath. Those who are propitiated have the wrath of God appeased on their behalf. If every single person who has ever lived is propitiated then there is no wrath stored up against anyone at all, and no one is going to hell.

Perhaps you are defining the word propitiation as POTENTIAL propitiation rather than ACTUAL propitiation....

[ June 02, 2002, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

The question of whether 3:16 is evangelistic or about eternal security is answered by John 20:31: but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

John said he was writing to bring people to belief so that they would have eternal life.

 

I said that Christ shed his blood and it's up to man to apply it through faith. Does this make man the savior? By no means! How could man apply blood that had not been shed? Christ shed his blood and that blood saves, but it must be applied. When a person applies it to their heart they do not save themselves anymore than the Hebrews saved themselves in the Passover by putting the blood of the lamb on the door! But notice, the killing of the Pascal lamb did not automatically save the Hebrews from death - they had to put it's blood on the door. Jesus' death did not automatically save us - we must put his blood on the door as it were by faith.

Now, name an Old Testament sacrifice in which the animal is punished. The sacrifices of the OT are types of Christ and in none is remission by punishment but by shedding of blood. Paul specifically calls Jesus "Christ our Passover" but you throw this out so that you can believe in a mere penal atonement.

IN CALVINIST PENAL ATONEMENT REMISSION IS NOT BY BLOOD - IT IS BY PUNISHMENT - THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS MERELY SEEN AS A SIDE EFFECT AND THIS IS HERESY.

FURTHERMORE, you make Christ ONLY save from WRATH. Is deliverance from wrath all the atonement is about? NO! In your Penal Atonement system, only punishment can be removed. The Bible teaches, however, a removal of the sin itself and not merely the punishment - this can only be accomplished by shedding and applying of blood - NOT by punishment.

(Heb 10:4 KJV) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. - NOR is it possible for Calvinist Penal Atonement to take away sins - it can only remove punishment, not sin. THUS, THE CALVINIST SYSTEM IS AS WORTHLESS AS THE LAW OF MOSES AS FAR AS REMOVING SIN IS CONCERNED. Christ, however, by shedding his blood has made an actual removal of sin possible to those who apply that blood to themselves by faith.

Atonement is not a legality but a cleansing. Christ's blood actually cleanses us from sin; it does not merely let us avoid punishment. "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth" (1 John 1:7)

Calvinism says "YOU CAN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE CHRIST WAS PUNISHED FOR YOU."

The BIBLE says "YOU CAN'T BE CALLED UNRIGHTEOUS FOR CHRIST'S BLOOD HAS CLEANSED YOU."

That's a huge difference!

[ June 02, 2002, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

Of course. It is not an actual propitiation unless it is applied, and it is an actual propitiation for all those to whom it is applied.

Huh? We apply it to our hearts? If so, then WE are the ones who make Christ's death into a true propitiation. If that statement is true, then is up to us to take a POTENTIAL propitiation wrought by Christ, and make it into an ACTUAL propitiation by our application of it to our hearts. We are the lynchpins. We are the key to everything.

Calvinism does indeed teach that the atonement is penal, but it also teaches that it is redemption, remission, atonement, sacrifice, reconciliation, etc, etc. The atonement is a complex thing, described in many ways in scripture, but never described as mere potential, but as actual redemption, remission, atonement, reconciliation, etc.

And Christ bearing our punishment is certainly part of it:"The chastisement for our peace fell on Him." His stripes (his punishment) healed us. He was stricken for the trangressions of His people.

Why do you think this? Remission is by blood applied to all of Christ's people. The blood is hardly a side effect. Christ's death is a sacrifice, and the sacrificial blood is applied to all of His people. As our High Priest, Christ makes a sacrifice as a representative for all of His people, just as the OT priest made an atoning sacrifice for all of the people of Israel. All of His people have remission of sins because His sacrifice was made on their behalf.

Huh? Calvinist always say it is all of those things listed above--but it is actual rather than potential. It is applied to all those Christ represented when He died, because they were "in Christ" when He died. Christ substituted for them.

[ June 02, 2002, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Calvinism and the Bible say both things are true. One statement doesn't negate the other.

 

SolaScriptura said:I said that Christ shed his blood and it's up to man to apply it through faith. Does this make man the savior?

Its either the Faith of Jesus Christ or the Works of Man?... Its either one or the other and it can't be a blending of both! You can throw every scripture in the pot and make the gospel stew you want but that will not make it so. You can't apply the blood until you are bought with it and not before. Gods people are the only one the blood applies to and they are Jews inwardly and God knows his children. Notice none of the blood was applied to the door post of an Egyptian house. Why? God is showing his children a spiritual truth using a natural illustration. The death angel always visits the first born of Egypt and we are all born to die!... Brother Glen

 

John 3:16 - he died for the whole world BUT it is not applied to the whole world. You are wrong, therefore, it is not applied to all that he represented, but all who have faith. NOR were they yet "in Christ" for Galatians 3:27 says we are "baptized into Christ" and therefore not "in Christ" prior to baptism.

You limit it to penal again: "Christ substituted for them." Substitution can only save FROM PUNISHMENT! Show me please where the Bible uses subsitiution terminolgy. He died FOR us, he was chastised FOR us, he was bruised FOR us, he suffered FOR us...always FOR and never IN PLACE OF is the Biblical terminology. "He took our place" makes us his equals, for if he merely took our place, we could have done it ourselves - the substitute is never better than the substitutee. IF Jesus just took my place, then I also could have took that place - I could have been saved by my own death. I object to subsitution terminology - it isn't in the Bible. FOR us not IN OUR PLACE!

Rom 3:22, Gal 2:16, Gal 3:22 KJV "faith OF Jesus" NKJV "faith IN Jesus"

So, is it Jesus' faith in the Father or our faith in Jesus?

Neither do we find GOD applying the blood to the door posts of the Hebrews! They applied the blood themselves, as we do through "faith IN Jesus."

"And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they." 12:28

[ June 04, 2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

All He represented and all who have faith are exactly the same. All that Christ represented come to faith.

We are baptized into Christ, yes. That is one of our subjective experiences of being "in Christ." But Eph. 1 also tells us that we are chosen "in Christ" before creation. And Romans 6 and Galatians 2 (a couple places I can think of off the top of my head--there may well be more) tell us that we died with Him--we were "in Christ when He died.

No, I don't. Read what I wrote--it is penal....and MORE!

"Anti" (one of the words translated "for") means "in place of" or "instead of." Matthew 20:28 tells us Christ was a ransom "in place of" many. He was a vicarious ransom.

"Huper", another word translated "for" also seems to carry with it the idea of substitution:

"For Christ also died for sin once for all, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." (1 Pet. 3:18)

"For" used here seems to mean " in place of." Likewise, 2 Cor 5:14:

"For the love of God controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died."

And this one doesn't have "for" in it, but it certainly seems to point to a vicarious aspect to Christ's death:

"He himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, might live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed."

You cannot get around the substitutionary nature of what that verse says Christ did. He bore our sins, our sins were laid on Him, He substituted for us.

Huh? The substitute cannot be any LESS than the one he substitutes for, but where's the law against a better substitute?

Well, He hardly MERELY took our place. It was a sacrificial and difficult thing to do involving real suffering.

But you are right--you could have died on your own behalf. But you would not have been saved by it, for it would have been just punishment for your sins. Which is why Jesus had to be sinless: If he had been sinful He could not have substituted for us, for he would have been dying for his own sins instead of ours.

Every single person who goes to hell does do it for themselves. They are dying for their own sins. Those whom Jesus substituted for don't have to die for their own sins because Jesus died in their place.

Uhhh.....You know what? I object to your calling this blasphemy (Please be careful what you call blasphemy.), for vicarious terminology is used frequently in scriptural passages about the atonement. I know. A couple of years ago I did an extensive study of every single passage that mentioned the atonement in any way.

And FOR is quite often "in our place."

[ June 04, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

SolaScriptura said

... WOW is somebody in error... I'll take the Faith OF Jesus which makes possible the Faith IN Jesus... After I am in the covenant of Grace and not before!... Isn't that what a disciple is?... Why do some brethren always change scripture to fit their doctrine?... Brother Glen

 

Sola Scriptura's remarks on blasphemy have been edited from his original post. That will not be tolerated here. From here on, I will likely not edit offending posts; I will simply delete them. I am not going to go and rewrite what you write. Get it right the first time.

As for remarks on teh theory of the atonement, the Scripture very clealry teaches a substitutionary atonement. The prepositions (of which many more examples could be given) were listed above. To deny the substitutionary and penal atonement is to deny the possibility of salvation. The debt must be paid, either by you or by Christ.