John 3:16

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Southern, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Arminians often cite John 3:16 as if it was somehow contradictory to the Doctrines of Grace. If you ever cite John 3:16 in your post’s on the this board, before you post in this specific forum, please follow the link below and read the post on John 3:16 in its “entirety”.

    http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm2.showMessage?topicID=650.topic

    Also: Here is the full response to Dave Hunt if anyone is interested.
    http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

    Once you do this please do the following:

    Point out any one or many disagreements that you have with this specific presentation of John 3:16 and why you disagree.

    Thanks to my Arminian brothers in Christ who have been willing to discuss these important issues.

    In Christ

    P.S. Please take the time to read the post on the supplied link. I do not want to just throw proof texts around. If you want to post on this forum please take the time to see where I am coming from.
     
  2. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Southern,

    I think this is the heart of your post.
    Your attitude seems to be kind of flip toward that which we all believe is coming from the Triune Godhead. We can explain all of the proof texts that we offer or that you might point to for consideration.

    I found Dave Hunt's book to directly take on the Calvinistic theories. This is why he is so hated by his antagonists. While Greek and Hebrew are helpful for clarity on some passages, we nevertheless, tell our congregations to study the KJV. If it were so far off the truth we would not tell Christians to study the Bible.

    I studied Greek but realize that you do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand the Gospel that was written to simple people in need of the Lord God, both in His day and in our times.

    'For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.' {The New International Version}

    Dr. Archibald Thomas Robertson, {probably by now} the former Professor of N.T. Interpretation in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says:

    'The world (ton kosmon). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears in II Cor. 5:19; Romans 5:18.'

    It is to all people that God has given us His Son to be the Savior of the world of lost souls. [John 1:29]

    Almighty God 'lights every person who comes into the world' [John 1:9] because our Lord speaking through John the Baptist declares that Jesus is ' . . . the Lamb of God Who has taken away the sin of the world.' [John 1:29] This is the world that Dr. A.T. Robertson explains from the Greek in his writings.

    Why did Jesus die on the Cross? The answer is also in this fourth Gospel. [1:7] 'The same came for a witness {the Baptist} to bear witness to the Light {of Jesus} that ALL MEN (human beings/sinners) through Him {Jesus} might believe.'

    Explain this to Drs.R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Arthur W. Pink, James R. White, John Piper and other men and women who cherish error.

    Notice the Apostle John in writing down truth that John the Baptist gave us coming from God is not that the Lamb died only for the elect, in the alleged 'particular atonement.' Jesus has totally disabled Satan's power in the lives of all who believe and trust in Jesus as Savior.

    Berrian, Th.D.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fellows,

    Please comment on "specific" points that you disagree with from the article. That is the purpose of this forum.

    In Christ
     
  4. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article uses a whole lot of words to say this
    Jesus, the Son of God ATONED for ALL sins, in ALL times in his ONCE-for-ALL self sacrifice. Dying IN OUR STEAD, He removed the penalty that accompanies sin, from us, so that by believing in Him we can have eternal life. Just as the image of the serpent was raised in the wilderness for EVERYONE to see, only those who looked upon the serpent were saved from their snakebites! The same with Jesus, He was raised up on the cross for EVERYONE TO SEE, and thereby believe, but only those who 'look to him', that is, place their faith in Him are saved.

    Just as that bronze serpent on a cross in the wilderness saved NO ONE; Jesus' death on the cross saves no one! But His atoning sacrifice for sin, ENABLES all who place their faith in HIM to be saved.


    The argument about the meaning of "world" is stupid. World has meant from the beginning "the whole of what comprises this world", thus all mankind, since the animals do not communicate in human language and cannot be expected to understand it, the message is for the totality of humanity. Therefore to try to limit world to mean "an elect" is the height of stupidity, and is not supportable in scripture or anywhere else for that matter.
     
  5. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes,
    Just a simple question. Does your definition of "World" fit into John 12:19?
    Maybe you could point out my "stupidity", as you called it, by explaining how your definition fits this verse.

    In Christ...
     
  6. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    You expect me to define what the Pharisees world may be? It seems to me that the Pharisees had a very small world. The Pharisees did not have God's perspective of His creation, all they knew was their own "little world", and they saw that slipping between their fingers and out of their grasp. And yes sir, if you are basing your eternal life's doctrines on "the world of the Pharisees" then you truly are very stupid.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes,

    You are completely and wholly out of line in your posts. Use of words like "stupid" and "stupidity" will not be tolerated. You may clean up your posts or take a vacation from posting. This is a discussion forum. Please participate as a gentleman.

    Moderator
     
  8. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will not quote further.

    Ray, awhile back you asked me, in another thread, why we Calvinists dismissed you when you posted Greek scholarship and commentaries in opposition about our own views.

    Here is a prime example, Ray. A.T. Robertson was a Calvinist, a great admirer of Calvin himself, and a biographer of John Broadus, also a Calvinist. For you to extol him on your side of this debate is like David Hunt saying that Spurgeon did not believe in particular atonement.

    No, Ray, it is because he never offers any exegesis of his own that addresses what we actually believe and because he makes basic errors of fact about the beliefs of persons about whom he writes. You'd feel the same way about Hunt as any of us would about a man that believed the Judaizers' teachings that would misrepresent Paul by saying he believed a man should be circumcised in order to be a Christian.
     
  9. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acknowledged Pastor Larry.

    Do you have a list of prohibited words that you can post so that I do not make the same mistake with a different word?
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, just use common sense and speak to others with Christian kindness.
     
  11. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes,
    No offense taken on my part. Discussions can get heated and no doubt I have "crossed the line" (whatever it is) myself. May God continue to bless us. Have a great worship day and may the Lord be glorified.

    In Christ
     
  12. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Southern, None intended on my part.
     
  13. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes,

    What I am trying to say is that the "World" to the Jewish mindset of the day meant either Jew/Gentile or Gentiles "also" (not just the Jews). The term meant all without distinction to class or race. It was even used of Gentiles as opposed to Israel (Rom. 11:12).Notice that these are Pharisees (Jewish leaders) that are making this statement. They do not mean each and every individual went after Him, but all kinds of people.

    When Jesus spoke to this leader of Israel in John 3 (Nicodemus), He used language that He would understand as a leader of Israel. The "World" to the Jewish mindset would have meant Jew and Gentile as a generic term. We see this consistant theme throughout scripture. Read John 10:50ff of how the High Priest described Jesus's death as for "that nation" (the Jews) but not that nation "only" but for the children of God scattered abroad (World=Gentiles). This was the Jewish mindset of the day and this is what Jesus addressed in John 3.

    Exactly, thats why the Bible constantly says it is not of the Jews "only" (I John 2:2;Rom. 9:24, etc.) but for the World (Jew and Gentile). The scriptures say that it is not for them "only" (I John 2:2;John 10:20ff;Rom. 9:24) but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 9:24;John 3:16;John 1:29). This word is simply a generic term referring to an "extension outside" of Israel.

    Your response actually helped clarify what I was saying. The fact that Jesus had sheep that were of "another fold" (Gentiles;John 10:16) was a real shocker to the "Just us Jews" mindset.

    This leaves me with another question. How does your interpretation of the word "World" in John 7:4.

    In Christ
     
  14. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists Drs. David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that "The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century."1 (from "The Five Points of Calvinism" Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963, p. 19)

    Drs. Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, 'The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him . . . .3 (from "Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism" Stillwater Revival Books, 1990, p. 78

    The famous Calvinistic theologian, Dr. B.B. Warfield declares, 'The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of Reformers.4 (from "Calvin and Augustine", ed. Samuel G. Craig Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1956, p. 22

    Dr. Alvin L. Baker wrote, 'There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine's influence.'6 (from "Berkouwer's Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance?" Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1981, p. 25

    If anyone has these books please let us know if these are accurate quotes.
     
  15. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kinda has the ring of "come out of the closet" now don't it?
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thanks again for the opportunity to read that 19,000 word link in the intro. One doesn't often have the chance to slog through 19000 words to make a point.

    But in the end... the points are the same.

    God "really DID" so love THE WORLD that HE GAVE His only son.

    To see the scope of WORLD you just need to read the first 15 vs of John chapter 1.

    He made it.

    He came into it.

    He is the light that coming into the world enlightens every person.

    And in this world - some LOVE darkness rather that that light that they are confronted with in Christ.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Calvinism faces two huge challenges.

    #1. They must argue why it is ok for God to love JUST THE FEW of Matt 7 instead of the WORLD - and still be considered a God of Love.

    #2. They must explain WHY God SHOULD say HE "So loved the WORLD" when in fact He means "So loved the FEW".

    These are two impossible tasks - yet Calvinists take them on with unending enthusiasm in an effort to defend Calvinism.

    We have to give them credit for that.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wanted to "Bumppp" this up because no one has addressed any specific part of the link I provided. All I have seen is how Calvinist's are wrong, etc. but nothing addressing any specific points in the link I provided. If it is too long to pick out one point, then you do not have to participate.

    In Christ
     
  19. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    In White's Calvinist biased exegesis there is not one mention of Genesis, the creation story. "And God looked upon what He had created and called it VERY GOOD!

    Instead, White concentrates his thoughts on the "present" condition of Israel, making it seem as if it is the whole world.

    If White were to be accurate he would need to "slip the surly bonds of earth" and view the world from God's perspective, not man's. But alas, he does not do that, staying instead inside the bubble of Calvinism with his exegesis.

    He has done exactly what he accuses HUNT of doing! Therefore his "letter" has no credibility, and is not convincing. He has not persuaded!

    Only one who is neither Calvinist nor Arminian can see that truth. So my recommendation to you Southern and everyone else that participates in this topic, take off you bias colored lenses so you can see the truth!
     
  20. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what? Adam and Eve fell. Are they still good?

    You provided exactly zero exegetical rebuttal to the article.
     

Share This Page

Loading...