Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,865
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:02 PM
Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 AM
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#47694 Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
I read an interesting article called “Whosoever Believes”: Why I interpret John 3:16 as a Gospel Invitation.
Thoughts?

In the comment section, one responder said something I thought was interesting.
Quote
I like what Dabney says about it: if whosoever=elect, then we have the elect losing their salvation in v18.

Tom

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
What are YOUR thoughts on the article, Tom? You wrote you found it "interesting". Do you think his approach and subsequent interpretation has merit?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
I love it! I'm sure that Calvin would not only agree, but add it to his own commentary if he were writing it today. The "general invitation" (also a "general ultimatum") is offered to all men without exception. It is the ability to inwardly respond to that outward call that defines the Elect.


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
What are YOUR thoughts on the article, Tom? You wrote you found it "interesting". Do you think his approach and subsequent interpretation has merit?

Pilgrim

I must admit that at this time I am still processing what the author is saying. While on the surface he seems to be quite persuasive in his argument. I know all too well something about myself, and that is that I am prone to error when I take a dogmatic stand before I have taken the time it takes to understand the issue as a whole.
Also, the old proverb from Proverbs 18:17 comes to mind.
“The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.”

Having said that, at this point I think it does have merit especially his comment about the elect losing their salvation in verse 18 of John chapter 3.

Tom

Tom #47711 Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Tom,

Okay, when you have finished processing what the author wrote, post your thoughts here. I'll withhold my assessment of the article until you respond with your processed thoughts. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Tom,

Okay, when you have finished processing what the author wrote, post your thoughts here. I'll withhold my assessment of the article until you respond with your processed thoughts. grin

My guess as to why you are withholding your assessment is that you don't want to influence me. Which if true I can certainly understand, but as you probably know already we don't always agree.
For example I am a Credo-Baptist and you are a Paedo-Baptist. grin

I do have a question for you though. In your understanding of people that were mentioned in the article such as John Calvin & John Owen; did the author represent their take on the issue accurately?

Tom

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Tom
I read an interesting article called “Whosoever Believes”: Why I interpret John 3:16 as a Gospel Invitation.
Thoughts?

In the comment section, one responder said something I thought was interesting.
Quote
I like what Dabney says about it: if whosoever=elect, then we have the elect losing their salvation in v18.

Tom

I haven't finished processing the whole article yet. However, I did look a little bit into the Dabney quote i.e. the elect losing their salvation in verse 18. Maybe I am missing something, but where did Dabney get that? scratch1

Tom

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
At the risk of influencing anyone, I heartily embrace the article and the general conclusion that we must present the offer of the gospel to everyone, indiscriminately and leave it up to God to apply the Spirit's work of regeneration to those the Father has given the Son. Offering Christ freely to everyone is in no way a violation nor affront to God's purpose in election. We do not and cannot know who the elect are, even among professing believers. Therefore we are to preach the gospel to "all the world." That's all without exception, not all without distinction.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by Tom
My guess as to why you are withholding your assessment is that you don't want to influence me. Which if true I can certainly understand, but as you probably know already we don't always agree.
For example I am a Credo-Baptist and you are a Paedo-Baptist. grin

I do have a question for you though. In your understanding of people that were mentioned in the article such as John Calvin & John Owen; did the author represent their take on the issue accurately?
1. My delayed assessment is only partially due to what you suggested. I also want to see what others think of the author's interpretation of John 3:16. The core interest is to see how many possess good hermeneutical and exegetical skills so as to "rightly divide/handle the word of truth" (2Tim 2:15). There also the matter of who reads discerningly. grin

2. To answer your question re: the author's representation of Calvin & Owen, that would be giving away part of my overall assessment of the author and what he wrote... would it not? Nice try!! [Linked Image]

3. True, Tom, we don't always agree. But disagreement is no justification to reject truth or embrace error, or to not continue to study God's infallible Word (Jh 8:31,32; 17:17). One of the first things one should learn is what the Bible teaches concerning its own proper method of study (hermeneutics) so that the truth we all claim to seek can be found. This is one of those particular areas which Satan is currently attacking the Church. There are quite a number of his minions out there who are leading thousands astray in our very day, e.g., Peter Enns.

Looking forward to your personal assessment and any/all other's comments on that article. bigglasses


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Robin

I agree 100% on what you said; however is that what the entire article is saying?
Is it not saying God loves the whole world indiscriminately, rather than “world” meaning elect, while at the same time also saying that this is completely compatible with Calvinism?

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:53 AM.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Quote
1. My delayed assessment is only partially due to what you suggested. I also want to see what others think of the author's interpretation of John 3:16. The core interest is to see how many possess good hermeneutical and exegetical skills so as to "rightly divide/handle the word of truth" (2Tim 2:15). There also the matter of who reads discerningly. grin
I also would like to see what others think about the author’s interpretation of John 3:16. One of my biggest goals is to learn hermeneutical and exegetical skills to rightly divide/handle the word of truth. This is the main reason why I am taking time on this particular issue. I have a ways to go on that, but I have learned a lot over the last few years. Unfortunately some people I know think I am overly critical when it comes to this kind of thing. When in actuality if I wasn’t trying to be discerning, I wouldn’t have recognized things like the Emergent Church movement’s influence on Churches and people I know.
Quote
2. To answer your question re: the author's representation of Calvin & Owen, that would be giving away part of my overall assessment of the author and what he wrote... would it not? Nice try!! [Linked Image]
Actually when you put it that way it makes sense, however that was not on my mind at the time. Basically, I presently am not read enough on people like Calvin and Owen, to know if the article is quoting them in context.
Quote
3. True, Tom, we don't always agree. But disagreement is no justification to reject truth or embrace error, or to not continue to study God's infallible Word (Jh 8:31,32; 17:17). One of the first things one should learn is what the Bible teaches concerning its own proper method of study (hermeneutics) so that the truth we all claim to seek can be found. This is one of those particular areas which Satan is currently attacking the Church. There are quite a number of his minions out there who are leading thousands astray in our very day, e.g., Peter Enns.
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I made that comment to show you that although I have a lot of respect for you and your knowledge of the Word of God. Yet, it would be irresponsible of me just to take your word for it; without being like a Berean. Your point is well taken though.

Tom

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Tom
Robin

I agree 100% on what you said; however is that what the entire article is saying?
Is it not saying God loves the whole world indiscriminately, rather than “world” meaning elect, while at the same time also saying that this is completely compatible with Calvinism?

Tom

Only if you read into the article more than it says, or take it too literally or interpret every term too strictly. I'm sure the author did not intend to communicate more than the need for us Calvinists not to neglect evangelism, nor to practice it in a discriminatory or prejudicial way.

I know that for a time I was guilty of my own form of "selecting the elect" by choosing to share Christ with people I thought "would make good Christians," and neglecting those I would not choose if I were the Father! I was unaware of the arrogance of that kind of "evangelism." The article reminds us that election is God's choice; that He doesn't tell us who they are ahead of time, and that He requires us to share the story of what God has wrought in Christ with everyone, indiscriminately offering Christ to "whosoever will" receive Him.


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by Tom
I also would like to see what others think about the author’s interpretation of John 3:16. One of my biggest goals is to learn hermeneutical and exegetical skills to rightly divide/handle the word of truth. This is the main reason why I am taking time on this particular issue. I have a ways to go on that, but I have learned a lot over the last few years.
If you are delaying your assessment of the article until others chime in so that you can adjust your 'hermeneutics', etc., you may have a very long wait. [Linked Image] Robin has already shared his thoughts on the article, so that's one. giggle But "iron sharpens iron", right? But you can't sharpen your 'iron' if you don't set it out there for others to sharpen their 'iron' too, right? So, just get on with it and lay it out there. After all, you are the one who started this thread. wink

You could say you are among friends here so go ahead and take that fatal plunge. evilgrin

I have already written out my assessment of the article. And, I have no intention of commenting on your view(s) nor anyone else's. My intent was to simply read the article through several times, check out what the author wrote previous to this article, which I often find helpful to assess my own assessment (people tend stick with a 'theme' or to ride hobby horses). Am I any different than you or anyone else here in that I need to read with discernment, use proper exegetical and hermeneutical skills, try to put any of my own potential preconceived ideas aside, etc. and to be unwavering on those things which I know are absolutely true.

Okay... waiting on you! grin [Linked Image] grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline OP
Needs to get a Life
OP Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Pilgrim
In a nut shell, I have already given my take on the article to Robin. He responded that I was reading too much in to what the article was saying. However, I am not so sure.

So basically if the article is saying that the word "world" means everyone (elect and un-elect); then I must disagree.
Though, I am still a little confused at Dabney's comment that if world means elect, then in verse 18, the elect can lose their salvation.

I do however agree the verse is evangelistic in nature, seeing as nobody except God knows who the elect are.

Tom

Tom #47733 Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:13 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Here's my lengthy 2 cents worth:

Originally Posted by BG
I don’t think the verse (and its larger context) is simply designed to teach people biblical doctrines or facts. It has a larger aim. Namely, God through the apostle John wants to solicit a response on the part of the reader. Let me explain my reasoning…. We all know that indicatives or interrogatives can be used as “directives.”…
Allow me to use an example more apropros of our text.
When I inform my five children at the dinner table, “Children, Daddy bought a gallon of “Moose Tracks” ice-cream so that all those who finish their supper might enjoy a tasty dessert,” I’m not simply stating a fact or describing a (potential) state of affairs. Actually, my remark is rhetorical. There’s an illocutionary intent behind it designed to solicit their compliance and to promote their happiness. My announcement at the dinner table would be semantically equivalent to the following: “Children, I want you to finish your dinner and in order to motivate you to do so I’ve purchased a gallon of your favorite ice-cream as a reward for those who comply with my wish.”
The author clearly states his presuppositional basis for interpreting the text. He brings to the text a pre-determined conclusion and then seeks to justify his conclusion with the above examples. He proposes that there is ‘an illocutionary intent’ to be seen in John 3:16. One definition of “illocution” is: the aim of a speaker in making an utterance as opposed to the meaning of the terms used. It is my opinion that the author has ignored one of the most basic principles of biblical interpretation, i.e., a proper understanding of Scripture is derived from the meaning of the inspired words used and not vice versa. This is one of the major differences held in the field of Bible translation: Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence. The former gives full recognition of the divine inspiration of every jot and tittle of Scripture as its primary principle in translation. The latter seeks to interpret Scripture and as translation without giving full recognition of the individual words themselves. Examples of the respective views are very well known, e.g., KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJ, ESV (former) – vs – NIV, NEB, LB, GNFMM, etc. In short, the author comes to the text with the notion that the passage is to be understood as being an evangelical call to believe on Christ. He then sets out to try and prove the premise.

One of the examples he uses is taken from Numbers 21 and repeated in John 3:14. He writes:
Originally Posted by BG
And that bare statement of fact, i.e., “anyone bitten shall live when he looks at it,” was designed to solicit a response from the dying Israelites. Rhetorically, it functioned as a directive: “Look and live.”
The passage in Num 21:8 says:
Quote
And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
I don’t see a “rhetorical” inference in this passage. Rather, I read it as a statement of fact,; those who are bitten and look upon the fiery serpent will not die (as those who have already perished). This is a provisional statement. There is a provision made for life; the serpent. And, there is a provisional requirement; looking at the serpent. There is a true analogy to be understood from this passage to that in Jh 3:14ff. More on this below.

Originally Posted by BG
Expanding on Jesus’ words, the apostle renders the redemptive-historical portrait in full-technicolor. Just as Yahweh showed unexpected grace to that ungodly lot of unworthy Israelites, so God surprisingly loves the fallen human race (kosmos)2 to such an extent (outos)3 that he sends His Only Son.… But why does the apostle underscore the greatness of God’s love?
I have exegeted this text numerous times before on this board and elsewhere so I am not going to spend time repeating it in full. Here I want to deal with 1) loves the fallen human race, and 2) to such an extent.

1) I believe the view that is most faithful to the word “world” in this passage says that ‘all kinds of people of the world without exception’ are meant, i.e, Jew and Gentile. Yes, it is true that all are sinful, there is none righteous, no not one. John chapters 1 & 2 had already established the sinful condition of mankind and their need of redemption through Christ. Chapter 3 goes into more detail as to HOW this redemption is obtained. Thus the clandestine meeting with Nicodemus and the conversation that went on between him and Jesus. Therefore I maintain that the “world” in 3:16 is to be best understood in terms of the scope of redemption primarily rather than the condition of man.

2) Now, in regard to to such an extent, which the author maintains is to be understood as quantitative, i.e., God loved the world sooooooooo much; this much. This is supposed to be the motive behind God sending of the Christ. The author gives a couple of references of those who interpret ‘outws’ as accepting this meaning. Unfortunately, the author didn’t give an accurate (full) reference to William Hendriksen. Hendriksen actually wrote on this word, “The word so by reason of what follows must be interpreted as indicating: in such an infinite degree and in such a transcendently glorious manner.” However, I have to strongly disagree with that interpretation. My interpretation sees that word having a double meaning: 1) primarily ‘in this manner or way’ and 2) ‘qualitatively’, infinitely divine, similar to Hendriksen’s understanding. My reason for understanding its primary meaning as ‘in this manner’ is based on contextual terms, which even the author points out when he makes note of the “For” (Gk: gar) which begins the verse. Let me put it this way… Just as God showed compassion and made a provision for those who were bitten by poisonous snakes and who would surely die by raising a fiery serpent on a pole, in like manner God has made a provision for guilty sinners who will surely die in the sending of His Son who would be lifted up (set/hung/crucified on a cross). There is a clear analogy here between the two events. And the ‘manner’ displays the expression of God’s infinite love, i.e., in the provision of the sending of the Son. In short, the ACT of sending the Son is the visible demonstration of God’s infinite love to save a people for Himself out of the entire world which is even now under judgment.

Originally Posted by BG
Some Calvinists with a little Greek under their belt are quick to tell us that the reading of the AV, “whosoever believeth in him,” is mistaken. The Greek features a participle in the nominative case (o pisteuwn) modified by the adjective “all” (pas). Hence, they argue, John is simply stating a fact: “all believers go to heaven.”
Unfortunately, this is a case where knowing a little Greek vocabulary, grammar, and syntax is not enough. One must grasp the larger picture of how language works, that is, the science of linguistic. Language is much more flexible than many realize, and it doesn’t take an imperative or cohorative to express a command, directive, or entreaty. Consequently, it’s not enough to parse verbs correctly and arrive at a “literal” rendering of the text. The interpreter must look for the rhetorical strategy behind the text. This is certainly the case with so famous a verse as John 3:16.
I found this statement to be personally insulting and an insult to all students of Koine Greek. You do not have to be a Greek ‘scholar’ to understand the Greek NT. Basic Greek grammar applies to both novices and scholars. Notice how he first tries to eliminate any opposition from those who have studied Greek and then re-states his presupposition which I have already said is faulty to begin with. He says knowing Greek isn’t enough but rather one must add to this knowledge, “The interpreter must look for the rhetorical strategy behind the text.. Really!?? And from what Greek textbook did he grab that from, I wonder? dizzy

Here are the plain facts: 1) the phrase “whosoever believeth” (AV, et. al.) in the Greek is “pas o pisteuwn”. It is indeed a nominative singular masculine present participle of the verb “to believe”. Literally, it can be rendered as: ‘all the believing ones’, ‘all believers’, who express an enduring faith. There is no “whosoever” to be found in the text. This is an interpretation and not an accurate translation. Why ‘whosever’ appears in many English translations is a mystery to me. Further evidence supports the use of the literal rendering of the phrase. What immediately precedes ‘pas o pisteuwn’ is the word “iva” (hina) which most everywhere means, “in order that” or “for this purpose”, i.e., it was God’s infallible and efficacious intent that all the believing ones throughout the entire world would not perish due to their natural sinful state; an imputed guilt and an inherited corruption of nature. They, like those who had been bitten by poisonous snakes were as living physical dead, were spiritually dead and hell was their sure end. But, it was the giving of the eternal Son of God in the flesh and His perfect righteousness and perfect death that would reverse the effects of that spiritual death and guilt for those whom the Father gave Him and who would believe in Him. There is no “possibility salvation” to be found in this text, i.e., Jesus was given to everyone and secured their salvation through His death IF they would only believe. The Son came for the elect and them alone who were to be found in both Jews and Gentiles. It was for the ‘believing ones’, ultimately the elect, that Christ came to redeem.

Does this eliminate a promiscuous preaching of the Gospel? No! Does this Gospel restrict itself to only the elect, to those who first must ascertain their election and/or regeneration? No! For it is through the means of the Gospel that God calls forth Christ’s sheep; they will hear His voice and follow Him. But this text is NOT primarily a “Gospel invitation” to believe on Jesus. It is rather a grand statement of how God has purposed to save a people to Himself out of the entire race of fallen men. It further emphasizes the hopeless condition of the fallen race and the end which awaits it. And yes, it also shows that there are those who will not perish because God has purposed that they should have eternal life in His Son through belief in Him.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 84 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,457 Gospel truth