John 3:16

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.

 

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 NNE; 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

No, just use common sense and speak to others with Christian kindness.

 

Thanks Southern, None intended on my part.

 

'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.

 

Kinda has the ring of "come out of the closet" now don't it?

 

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

 

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

 

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!

 

So what? Adam and Eve fell. Are they still good?

You provided exactly zero exegetical rebuttal to the article.