John 3:16 does not say "whoever DOES believe WILL be saved" as you assert. A closer look at verb tense reveals that it says "the one BELIEVING HAS everlasting life." These verbs are both in the present tense. Now, what you say IS true, they also WILL be saved in the final judgement, but that is a systematic theological inference based on other precepts like John 10:28 and it is not what John 3:16 says by itself. Thus John 3:16 is an assurance text, not an offer.
I think it'd be MORE ethical (and moral) to bare one's OWN responsibilities, instead of scapegoating sins away...that sounds like wish-thinking to me! Where's the honesty in that? Some folks get lathered up by John 3:16 without ever thinking things through. The Bible, for example, is Pro-Genocide & Pro-Slavery & Pro-Child Sacrifice...yuck! And don't get me started on those Biblical family values, from Jephtha's daughter to Lott's daughters to Abraham's son (Isaac)...pathetic, immoral nonsense!!!
@TruthJockey Not everything that happened in the bible is a manual for how to live. What Lot's daughters did was wrong - it wasn't condoned. 12 times in Genesis it says "this is an account" - it was NOT part of the Ten Commandments. One of the main points of the Old Testament was to show us that those people were sinners just like us today but God chose to use them out of His grace and mercy. It's all about the extent of His grace.
@rrusco Lady, I'm sure you mean well, but ALL the Gods, ALL the Heavens, ALL the Hells are in YOU - it's as simple as that! If you're thinking Jesus is up in the clouds somewhere then you're missing the point...he died (metaphorically), a man shedding his ways of the materialistic, egotistic, animalistic ways - RESURRECTING himself, born again into Spirit. This is the same allegorical message told EVERYWHERE... from the Freemasons to Platonists to the Pythagoreans. The sheep get the exoteric!
@TruthJockey Um, no. First of all, he *actually* died, which is something even external witnesses attest to (Josephus, Antiquities), and he wasn't "born into Spirit". 1 Corinthians 15, plus the post-resurrection accounts display a PHYSICAL Jesus, with a PERFECTED physical body, continuing to display His miraculous powers, albeit for different reasons (this time validating His resurrection to His disciples).
@TruthJockey You've got several serious flaws in that argument there: Jesus *actually* died, with even external non-Christian sources attesting so (see Antiquites, Josephus). He didn't "shed" anything, but actually *took on* human flesh. He wasn't "born again into Spirit", even a cursory read of the post-Resurrection events in the Gospels (and also 1 Cor. 15) show a *PHYSICAL* Christ, with a *PERFECTED* body. He wasn't "spirit", but a miraculous, perfected being.
@TruthJockey You've got several serious flaws in that argument there: Jesus *actually* died, with even external non-Christian sources attesting so (see Antiquites, Josephus). He didn't "shed" anything, but actually *took on* human flesh. He wasn't "born again into Spirit", even a cursory read of the post-Resurrection events in the Gospels (and also 1 Cor. 15) show a *PHYSICAL* Christ, with a *PERFECTED* body. He wasn't "spirit", but a miraculous, perfected being.
Jesus died for the world as the 'lamb of God'. That is a reference to the first passover where a the blood of a lamb saved the Hebrew people from God's judgment but many of those Israelites were rebellious and God still dealt with them later in the wilderness. We don't know what judgment God had in mind at the crucifixion but we do know that He flooded the earth at the time of Noah because of violence and sin.
P.S. It's not a sin to 'know God' which can also mean to be 'like God'.
At the time of the first passover we can see that not all the Hebrews were spiritually saved even though they were protected by the blood of the lamb. They were punished later because of their lack of faith and rebellion. The work of Jesus was for the "whole world" to give us time to change(repent) and have faith by being born of the spirit(Jn 3:5). God might have destroyed it all (heavens and earth) otherwise.
ALL sins WILL be forgiven unto men but he who blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven. christ died for the sins of the whole world the bible says so but those who truly believe that jesus is the christ WILL be saved regardless of works. gods wrath has been satisfied. work on your faith not works and god will do the rest
john calvin was not a good man. Calvanism is a flat out misrepresentation of scripture and imo evil. No i am not an armenianist either. Any time you have a doctrine named after a man, and in order to defend that you change the meaning of scriptures to agree with your doctrine you learned from that man.. you have gone into heresy. PERIOD. You guys need to read a real history of the man John Calvin. Teh guy was a creep. geneva during his time of influence was a totalitarian nightmare.
So? what if he was the worst person on earth...what does that have to do with the doctrines of Grace?
Nothing.
Quote:
"Any time you have a doctrine named after a man, and in order to defend that you change the meaning of scriptures to agree with your doctrine you learned from that man.. you have gone into heresy. "
Lol...I don't follow Calvin...I follow a consistent reading of scripture..
Cool Common Grace Scripture Gen 25:5-6 "And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had . . . "
"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD, who has compassion on you.
@rpavich Using these different rules of exegesis we can see how doctrine has changed from what the Apostle Paul preached. Modern bible translations are even teaching a different doctrines to that of the hellfire and brimstone KJV published in 1611.
@rpavich If we use good rules of exegesis we will translate 'monogenes' as 'only born son' because in Luke 3:38 we find Gods 'created son', Adam. This is why the translation 'one and only son' is incorrect.
@rpavich Modern translations teach "Jesus the one and only Son of God". Why then do we still have Luke 3:38 and 1Cor 15:45. These should be removed or changed to fit our current Christian doctrine.
@rpavich Not one of the 'types of Christ' from Seth to Solomon was ever a firstborn or one and only. All firstborns were rejected by God (Cane to Absalom and all firstborn of Egypt). How many times have I heard the sermon "Abrahams only son". Every time I always think, what about Ishmael? I get tired of hearing what I call new era or new age Christianity. What about returning to first century doctrines?
@rpavich Paul summarises his doctrines in 1Cor 15. My interpretation of it does not match modern teaching. These Judeans (Jews) and other Hebrews seemed to teach a restoration of Eden (or paradise) through a savior who would be a son of man (Adam) and so a new good Adam. This maybe their Jesus but we preach a different Jesus.
@rpavich Maybe I could use the favorite bible school scripture in Timothy, all scripture is good for doctrine... but I prefer Christs warnings about tradition such as 'beware of the leaven of the pharisees. What about Colossians 2:8. (Of course the elemental spirits are based on the Greek ideas, earth, water, fire and air, with Zeus being god of the air etc.)
To tell the truth Jesus mentions only one important doctrine which He emphasises 3 times John 3. We must be born of the Spirit.
@rpavich I assume you have never been to bible school. I was taught about the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter (Babylonian goddess Ishtar) in church history. This is not serious because it is only religion. Real faith is a very personal thing.
@rpavich Modern bible translation ignores the exegesis rules of time and place and instead uses replacement theology (the church replaces Israel and the Hebrews). What about the Jewish tradition of Jerusalem be on the site of the original garden in Eden? If the origin of Christianity was in the ancient Hebrew religion then why are our traditions based in Roman paganism?
@rpavich Religions are faith based and the closest thing to evidence is scripture itself. If you reinterpret Hebrews 11:1 as 'Faith is the evidence of the unseen(spirit)'. This Spirit (Hebrew - ruach) is found in Gen 41:38 Ps 51:11 and so on in the 'great cloud of witnesses'.
Read Jn 6:63 then you might just have a chance of understanding this mystical side of the Judeo Christian belief system. "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh is useless."
@rpavich You do get it. Religion itself is nonsense. Take the contradiction between Christian doctrine and scripture in 2 Peter 3:10-13 " according to His promise we wait for new heavens and a NEW Earth"
There is my evidence that Christianity has some nonsense doctrines.
@rpavich What a pity. I was about to question all of my family churches TULIP doctrines. That's good for a laugh. They preach you must be saved so they must have doubts themselves.
To be serious for a moment, I will say that I can't find any fault with Jn 3:3-5. ( We must be born of the Spirit.)
God "so" loved His orderly arraignment (kosmos) that the believing all ... shall not parish. Love in this vs is agapao or agape - see II John 1:6 - that we walk in His commandments. "So" puts a condition on the word loved ... we must be walking in His commandments. "whosoever" is a bad translation. Not in the original text of scripture. It is pas ho = the all - synecdoche - See "ge" in the greek it would have been used in this vs if it meant EVERYONE - few that be there find it Matt 7:14
Terriergal, with respect to Jn 3:16, the grace implied by the word "loved" in the phrase, "God so loved the world," whether one wants to call it "common" or not is irrelevant. The love here is granted to all men and is a love that intends the salvation of every man. Once a person believes, salvation is effected. The love here is specifically the love demonstrated at the Cross. From my perspective, and if I understand the terms correctly, the Cross is not a demonstration of "common grace".
God's love is effectual. Consider the end result if we say God loves everybody: Does God love those who end up in hell? What kind of love is it that God would have that would send them to hell? God's love is effectual to save every soul that he has elected to show mercy upon. The Shepherd shall not lose one of his sheep: for he loves every one of them-so much that he laid down his life for them-he has ransomed nations for those which are precious in his sight (Isaiah 43:3-4).
@HermitintheRain, the Bible says be imitators of God. So, then, if God's love is as you suggest, then it is legitimate for us to love only a select few and the others we can, at the least ignore or, at the most, hate. I mean, that loving as God loves.
Jn 3:16 states that God loved the world in such a manner as to send his only Son to die for their sins. It would be duplicitous of God to say, "I love you but I am not going to save you", would it not? Again, Jn 3:16 is NOT a demonsstration of "common" grace but of that love for all men, which intends their salvation if they believe.
1. The language resources he cites show his assertion is false regarding how world is defined with respect to "believers only"
2. He repeatedly argues for context to determine meaning of "world" but does not once address the context of Jn 3:16 showing how it demands such a definition.
I don't think it wise to slice hairs. It is fine to agree to disagree. I don't believe belittling other evangelists of this precious gospel is edifying to the church or benefits others who look on us in mockery. It's still not a black and white issue.
We don't close our minds because of our religious traditions. "open our hearts, o Lord to learn more from your Word." Let's study more, be open, and judge it carefully from God's word itself. Thank God for the science of biblical interpretation. It's God's science to interpret His Word. "pride" leads us to destruction. When we are humble the Holy Spirit will speak to us and lead us into the truth. God bless us all.
this is clearly a false prophet. There are numerous examples of equivocation and fallacious reasoning in general that the video contains it's own refutation. He doesn't know the difference between salvation and election, and this whole popular heresy directly opposes Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Great swelling words of emptiness and fables for itching (sinful) ears. Without holiness no man will see the Lord.
I do take Jn 3:16 at "face value". How it is interpreted in the video does not take it at face value but distorts the text in order to force "world" to mean "believers only."
Only the Calvanists have the "keys to understanding these difficult passages"! RUN RUN RUN!!! I think it's clear that "whosoever believeth on him" sheds light on what and who the "world" is! The world is the "whosoever"! The passage is self explainitory. I don't need Dr. So-n-So to give me the keys of understanding! This is a mark of every cult! REMEMBER? It's funny how this joker never mentions the context in light of "whosoever". This guy's god damns souls to hell for his own pleasure!
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
I am a calvinist but I believe that God Almighty offered up his only begotten Son Jesus Christ for the whole world or more specifically he (Jesus) died for every man, woman, and child but only those whom have been elected unto eternal salvation will believe on him (Jesus) because they have been enabled by his (God's) grace.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Didn' t I just explain that to you. Are you really that obtuse? Let's try again KJV- "ONLY BEGOTTEN" is translated from ONE word in the Greek- monogenes. Different translations will have varying terms, but they all have the same meaning. Anyone can look up the original Greek words and check their usage using a Greek Lexicon. The warning given in Rev. 22:18-19 refers to THE BOOK OF REVELATION, that's why it says -the book of these prophecies. The Bible is not ONE book, but a collection of many,
itfan- Now, you're changing the subject. We were discussing the term "firstborn". You obviously now realize how wrong you were. As for the term "begotten" in those passages, you're mistaken again. It's not "begotten", but ONLY BEGOTTEN. One word in the Greek- Monogenes. It carries the meaning of uniquely-born. I don't know where you're getting your so-called stats & info from, but you're highly misinformed. Your "sources" probably don't even list those so-called "scholars".
Go read your RSV & NIV, and go to John 3:16, John 3:18 and you will NOT find the word: "begotten" in there.
Why? The RSV goes back to the earliest manuscripts, and they could not find the word "begotten" there, so they threw it out + labeled it as HUMAN HANDIWORK.
Therefore, Jesus was NOT the begotten son, he was a son in the sense of a slave of God, who submitted his will to God, as all prophets were "sons" of God, meaning slaves and messengers of God.
icfan92 cont. - (forgot to finish my sentence)...is denotative of the person(s) relationship with God. God called the NATION of Israel "MY FIRSTBORN", obviously, Israel was not the first nation established. It was given the preeminence by God, when he chose them for HIS purpose. Words have more than one meaning even in English. In the New Testament, the Greek word for world is kosmos, which has different meaning depending on the context. Saying something is "clear cut" is incorrect.
YOU FAIL TO REALIZE that in" John 3:16, John 3:18:
The word "Begotten" has been THROWN OUT by 32 scholars of highest status, backed by 50 denominations, who say the word: begotten is: a fabrication and HUMAN HANDIWORK. WHO SAYS THAT?
NOT ME. It was: 32 scholars of highest status, backed by 50 denominations.
YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN A FABRICATED WORD? Your illogical.
F.Y.I- the term "whosoever" is not is the original Greek. The passage refers to "the believing ones". In other words, Christ died for the elect that would, through God's providence, ultimately come to saving faith.
icfan92- You obviously didn't understand a single thing I tried to explain to you. We are not dealing with writings that were originally in English. Ancient cultures have deeper meanings attached to the more basic ones. "Firstborn" has both literal AND figurative meaning. Typically, it means preeminence and is denotative of the person(or persons as the nation of Israel is "firstborn"). I can't make it more clear to you. You must free yourself from the shackles of your shallow understanding.
ICfan92- The term "first-born" does not necessarily denote chronological order, but sometimes refers to preeminence. You can't simply support your argument based on English(recent) grammar. You have to take the historical, cultural grammatical considerations in their respective contexts.
At first; I thought you were talking about the Holy Bible.
Clearly I was mistaken.
That is, unless you are using some of that 21st century perspective you were speaking against. That stuff completely ignores and re-edits the Bible and puts forth false boasts and claims against what is actually written in the Bible.
Because only in a 21st century perspective does this part of the series make any sense.
I wonder how many of God's people have you decieved with this single video?
(Isa28:9-10) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.10)For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Prophesy (Isa 53:12)/ The fulfillment of that in Mark.15:28
Some so called bible's don't have Mark.15:28 in themanuscript's from Alexandria Egypt (Deu.17:16). Also Look up (Rev.2:15) doctrine of the Nicolaitans
In john 3:16, the word "begotten" has been thrown out in new testament, by 32 Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 corporate Christian denominations .
Luke 5:16 "(Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God."
Matthew 26:44: So leaving them, he (Jesus) went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word."
How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe, the all knowing, most powerful, when he's praying to God? It doesn't make sense.
In Psalm 2:7, the word "begotten" has been thrown out in new testament, by 32 Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 corporate Christian denominations .
1 Peter 3:18-20 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[a] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
This is a very deep subject for me. IDK any Scripture to back up my belief, but I feel that everyone, at some point in their life, is afforded the opportunity for true salvation. Wether they receive it or not, is on them. This doctrine is too much like trying to put God in a box (that He doesn't fit in!).
there is a big difference between reading and understanding the Word of God. At some point every christian will move from reading into understanding. That will happen when the christian will finally deny himself for good and let the Lord teach him and reveal to him. Heresies have always been around and always will always attck the Truth. Be careful what u believe to be the "truth".
Well, it depends on what extent. For example, believing that Christ died substitutionarily for people is exclusively a Reformed doctrine. The historic, classical Arminian denies that Christ died substitutionarily for those who believe in Him. If one denies this, they've denied an essential of the Gospel and cannot be saved. However, many "Arminians" today do hold to sub atonement even though they're inconsistent as to why.
This is a very well done video. I appreciate Mark's gentle presentation.
Just put me in the catagory of "Uneducated, Silly, and Spritually Blind." The first rule of "Universally accepted Bibical Hermaneutics" is if Plain sense makes good sense; look for no other sense.
Mark says "If we are to understand the mind of God..." This is a pitfall of Calvinism. Who are we to know the mind of God? Some concept of God's nature are beyond our comprehension.
"This is a pitfall of Calvinism. Who are we to know the mind of God?"
You should throw your Bible away because all the theology contained therein might make you know God a little bit better, and according to you, that's a pitfall! We should not presume to know who God is or what He thinks about certain issues, nor what He has done!
Good afternoon skalapunk. This may be pushing a point. The Bible is a 1200 page book that illustates how God deals with mankind. We receive instruction, admonition, and encouragement. We are also offered salvation. But there are some concepts that we will not understand this side of heaven. How God reconciles his knowledge of our final destination and man's will, I think, is one of those unexplainable concepts.
I do know God, and wish to know him better. But I do not know his mind.
Jesus here just preached a very unpopular message and most of his disciples left him. Please take time to read the passage in context. Verse 68 peter says We have believed again mans view we chose Jesus. Verse 70 Did I Myself not choose you once again Gods view. Finally we see Gods redemptive plan yet one of you is a devil
The only other thing I'd remind anyone who reads this is that it's God's Holy Spirit that leads us to truth. That is what I claim my sense comes from :)
John 15:26, 16:7&13. We'll never FULLY know the mind of God in this lifetime, but I'm gonna keep learning what I can!
That's a bit of a caricature, but He does make people who He knows are going to hell.
Do you hold the position that God looks down the corridors of time and sees if a person will believe in Him then they become elect or predestined that way?
I do not deny with what you are saying. Some calvinists i heard say some were created just they can go to hell i.e. George Bush, Hitler, Saddam etc etc...
I just can't fathom the idea since God knows if you will accept him or not that he would say have you die at a young age or put you in nation where the Gospel is not preached.
Hell is eternal death..God really only knows the answer to this,you know he does choose some,but who is to say what is going to happen to everyone,only God.
Although a fairly good job of explaining the word "cosmos"/"world" has been done in this video. It still does not explain the full meaning of the verse because the word "SHOULD" has not been dealt with.
All those who have been drinking SHOULD not drive but take a taxi instead.
All those who have been drinking SHALL not drive but take a taxi instead. Two completely different meanings. Should indicates duty and obligation while shall means definitely will, something that is inevitable.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
I am a student at Lee University. I am a second semester freshman and i took a New Testament class last semester. I learned that John was writing to the Greeks or "Hellenists" not other Jews. Matthew's gospel was wrote to the Jews. Look at Matthew's language. Mark wrote to the Romans, and Luke wrote to the Gentiles. Why wouldn't Jesus die for everyone? He gave his son to the World. Also remember God is in Eternity looking back at our future. a.k.a. Foreknowledge.
My main intention was not to win an argument. I just do not agree with that fact that I have prayed foor my parents to know Jesus and they would be predestined not to know him. I have faith that they will be saved.
I do believe blasphemey against the Holy Spirit is a sin.
I think there is a balance somewhere in this theological thing. Because If the Bible is God's Word then why are the ones who Believe in Jesus can not agree with what it says.
Well, even if your intention was not to win an argument, surely you realized that if you presented one it would be addressed. I realize your concerns, but how do you know that your parents have not been predestined? If they're not believers now, that doesn't mean they won't ever be.
I'll answer your question, but it will take some interaction on your part. You agree that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin, and you hold that Jesus died for all the sins of everyone. First, why did Jesus die? Do you hold that it was for forgiveness of sins?
Why did you pray for your parents if God already have done his part and it is their decision now? Do you want him to disrespect their free will in order to work in their hearts?
We are to pray for people to come to God because it is all his work and his decision. And it is comforting news that God's will not ours will be done.
They disagree because of many things. Main one is taking verses which fit their theology instead taking theology out of verses.
This doctrine of free will is flawed. Man in his sinful state is controlled by the sinful nature. Your "free will" is totally influenced by the sin nature and you will do evil all the time because of it. No man who does evil all the time can turn from sin and toward righteousness. You do not understand the sin nature and the affect it has on the soul.
God intervention is the ONLY way that man can turns from their sins.
Continued from last post. Why would God send his son to the world and only save so many people? Why should people go to the ends of the earth? There are still some places that have never seen a white man. They defenitely have never heard of Jesus. Again sinners would ask; Why would a loving God predestine so many to make it to Heaven? They would see it reason to join Oprah's church. I think God could save Oprah. I have prayed for her and countless other "famous" people. Dios Te Bendiga.
I agree that he could save anyone, but I hold what Eph 1:4-5 teaches about only those who he predestined are the ones who will be saved. I've prayed for Oprah and other unbelievers, too. Predestination isn't a done deal in the respect that once you believe the doctrine, you just give up on evangelism. I've found it to be actually the opposite. (cont...)
As for, "Why would God send his son to the world and only save so many people?" Do you hold that everyone will be saved? If not, then you believe that He will only save so many people, too. Matthew spoke of this, too: "And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he will save his people from their sins. (Mat 1:21)" Note that he didn't say, "He will make it possible for people to be saved"; he said, "He will save his people..."
This is for Lane,I do believe we were chosen before the foundation of the world,but do you think the Holy Spirit still comes to everyone at least once in their life even though they have not been chosen?I know the Bible says many are called,but few are chosen,however I've never seen all are called anywhere.I know that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.Does this just mean the Elect will be the only ones who call upon the name of the Lord?
VERY important point here. There seems to be a lot of emphasis here on John and what "he" meant or what time he wrote it in, or what context it was in or what he was trying to say. Every word in our Bible is from God himself with an exact purpose for ALL times. (All scripture is given by inspiration of God--2 Timothy 3:16) The Gospel of John is part of the Word of God-not a sunday sermon! Lets not relegate it to just that. Every word, every phrase, has a purpose-we need only search to find it.
I agree with this video but I think it is still a mystery how God works. Determinism and Free Will seem to contradict but it may be possible that both work together. The elect do get saved but passages like Mat 24:24, where it says that false teachers may lead the elect astray, shows that it is a mystery how it works. Or 2 Peter 2:1 - it says that false teachers will deny the Master that bought them. Who is the master but Christ? Christ bought them by his blood on the cross. Its a mystery.
Well, not exactly. What does someone do when they buy something? They own it. Is not God the ultimate owner of all men? The Scriptures say that he's the Potter and we are pots so when 2Peter 2:1 says "denying the Master who bought them" this means that they deny the one who has ownership over them. Jesus is Lord of everyone but the only ones who will confess that He is are those who are saved. It's not so much of a mystery after all.
I agree, this is tough to understand at times. And all human analogies break down at some point, but the best way I know how to describe it is, my 7 yr. old son, has a certain amount of freedom at home to do as he wishes. However I am his father, and therefore my freedom is greater than his. This makes his "freedom" limited as a result of my sovereignty at our home. This means he does as he wishes, but not without my approval or disapproval. cont
Saying God chooses, but we have freewill, does seem like a contradiction, but as the previous analogy indicates, sovereignty, and freewill can work together.
Now if we say that God is sovereign, and humans are "autonomous"... this would be a contradiction.
No calvinist denies that man as a will but we deny it is free. Can you freely choose to love someone you were born hating? No, it is a super natural gift that allows us to make Christ precious to us.
the lines of argumentation are more based on logical deductions that "world" must not mean what Arminians think it to mean due to the clarity of other Scriptures. That is not exegesis, that is logic, and I therefore reject and don't feel the three videos really gave strong enough evidence in the form of positive assertions and sound exegesis of the tezt itself. This especially in the lightof the same author claiming that Jesus is prop. for not only are sins, butthose of the whole world!
can you guys share some scriptures about people being in hell or heaven at this very moment? couse I beleve Christ will resurect the DEAD not the living.thanks
of course not lane, i took that from first John, where there is an obvious distinction between those who are believers and those who aren't, but 1 John indeed gives an argument for the atonement extending to all the human race, not just the elect- hence the reason eric svendsen is what he terms a 4.5 calvinist, explaining that the intent of atonement of the cross is not just for the elect. As for logic, yes we should use logical dedections based upon texts, but if that's the only way in which
one comes to an understanding of John 3:16, then that is not good enough for me when it comes to actually proprly exegeting it. If one simply makes the claim that John 3:16 must be speakng of the elect cause of the variety of usage of "world" throughout the N.T. and that other passages are clear on the doctrine of election, then they're subtlety taking John 3:16 out of context and not really giving strong positive assertions of what the text is indeed saying- that is weak interpretation
Just to clarify for everyone who may not be aware, "propitiation" means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In one comment you imply that Jesus was the offering which turns away wrath for every person who ever lived (ie. the whole world.) In the next comment, you implied that Adolf Hitler is not in Heaven therefore God's wrath was not turned away from him. Do you see the problem here? The problem is that if you hold to your view of "the whole world", you're inconsistent.
actually the problem is not some inconsistency of mine, the problem is you're not willing to assume that I have indeed taken the 1 John 2:2 quote into context, where chapter 2 is contextually linked to chapter 1, where it says in verse 9 that if "we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins"- I doubt Hitler truly confessed- the fact is the propitiation is open to all, though conditioned on those who confess- and is shown to be true by works of love (1 John 2:9 onwards)
A propitiation is effectual. In other words, an offering that appeases wrath actually appeases wrath. If Christ is a propitiation, which the Bible teaches He is, He actually appeases the wrath of God. If he actually appeased the wrath of God for everyone, then no one goes to Hell. That makes Jesus schizophrenic and a liar because he preaches about people actually going to Hell. I'll keep with the Biblical view. Your inconsistency is already documented in these comments.
great point! problem here is you are not looking at the verse contextually, just logically showing the effectiveness of the nature of "propitiation"- John obviously makes a distintion between "us" and the whole world, yet still claims propitiation is for both. I understand your point about the sufficiency of the nature of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, but you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with John the Apostle- my understanding of this issue in John is sound
John obviously does make a distinction, but who was involved in the conversation John had in the epistle? 1) John 2) The readers and hearers So when John says, "not only for us" who is the "us"? Was it not him and the people the epistle was addressed to? Ok, with that said, then, why does he then refer to "the whole world"? It's because not every believer was reading his epistle at that moment hence he's saying that it's not only for him and his immediate audience but for all believers.
even better point lane, understood and not at all invalid. that drives us to the question then of who does "world" refer to here? while i cannot assume it is the literal whole world, I find your claim that it is all believers other than his immediate audience wanting. One reason- i don't think John would think his immediate audience would question whether such a propitiation extends to all other Christians also- therefore not having to include that
i find your understanding of "world" here begging the question: why would John have to mention all other believers also, as if his immediate audience/hearers would be questioning whether the other believers received the same blessing of Christ as their propitiation? whatever "world" means in 1 John, it's a bit silly to assume it means other believers other than the immediate audience- especially if one can't positively assert how- and your assertion seems weak and anachronistic
Calvinists seem not to be able to handle the idea of God making sufficient atonement yet still condition such effectiveness upon a human's response. I know such an idea sounds like it comes from Rome, but it is not inconsistent with the Bible either. I am obviously not a Calvinist, but I find it disturbing that Calvinist's view of God's redeeming work seeks to protect the sufficiency of such an atonement to the point of limiting it's intent-this i cannot agree with and disagree with reformed
Regardless if you disagree with the meaning of the word "world" here, do you not agree that both views limit the atonement in a respect? The Calvinist limits the number of people Christ sufficiently died substitutionarily for while your position limits the effect of Christ's death on the cross. It's not only a matter of I'd rather believe in a Savior that actually saves, but it's what the Bible teaches in such passages as "Christ WILL save his people" as stated in Matthew.
All Christians should see the Heaven Project game.
See more at my channel.
paulo3809 2 days ago
John 3:16 does not say "whoever DOES believe WILL be saved" as you assert. A closer look at verb tense reveals that it says "the one BELIEVING HAS everlasting life." These verbs are both in the present tense. Now, what you say IS true, they also WILL be saved in the final judgement, but that is a systematic theological inference based on other precepts like John 10:28 and it is not what John 3:16 says by itself. Thus John 3:16 is an assurance text, not an offer.
theearstohear 2 weeks ago
Great video! To God be the glory!
sjennings86 3 months ago
Joe Nunzio lol
bullmoose1969 7 months ago
That Was A Beautiful Story That You Just Told Us. Can We Hear The One About Goldie Locks & The 3 Bears Next?
MrHead1972 10 months ago
jesus saves!
dirtdemon6 1 year ago
I think it'd be MORE ethical (and moral) to bare one's OWN responsibilities, instead of scapegoating sins away...that sounds like wish-thinking to me! Where's the honesty in that? Some folks get lathered up by John 3:16 without ever thinking things through. The Bible, for example, is Pro-Genocide & Pro-Slavery & Pro-Child Sacrifice...yuck! And don't get me started on those Biblical family values, from Jephtha's daughter to Lott's daughters to Abraham's son (Isaac)...pathetic, immoral nonsense!!!
TruthJockey 1 year ago
@TruthJockey Not everything that happened in the bible is a manual for how to live. What Lot's daughters did was wrong - it wasn't condoned. 12 times in Genesis it says "this is an account" - it was NOT part of the Ten Commandments. One of the main points of the Old Testament was to show us that those people were sinners just like us today but God chose to use them out of His grace and mercy. It's all about the extent of His grace.
rrusco 11 months ago
@rrusco Lady, I'm sure you mean well, but ALL the Gods, ALL the Heavens, ALL the Hells are in YOU - it's as simple as that! If you're thinking Jesus is up in the clouds somewhere then you're missing the point...he died (metaphorically), a man shedding his ways of the materialistic, egotistic, animalistic ways - RESURRECTING himself, born again into Spirit. This is the same allegorical message told EVERYWHERE... from the Freemasons to Platonists to the Pythagoreans. The sheep get the exoteric!
TruthJockey 11 months ago
@TruthJockey Um, no. First of all, he *actually* died, which is something even external witnesses attest to (Josephus, Antiquities), and he wasn't "born into Spirit". 1 Corinthians 15, plus the post-resurrection accounts display a PHYSICAL Jesus, with a PERFECTED physical body, continuing to display His miraculous powers, albeit for different reasons (this time validating His resurrection to His disciples).
Charliemackmack 9 months ago
@TruthJockey You've got several serious flaws in that argument there: Jesus *actually* died, with even external non-Christian sources attesting so (see Antiquites, Josephus). He didn't "shed" anything, but actually *took on* human flesh. He wasn't "born again into Spirit", even a cursory read of the post-Resurrection events in the Gospels (and also 1 Cor. 15) show a *PHYSICAL* Christ, with a *PERFECTED* body. He wasn't "spirit", but a miraculous, perfected being.
Charliemackmack 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthJockey You've got several serious flaws in that argument there: Jesus *actually* died, with even external non-Christian sources attesting so (see Antiquites, Josephus). He didn't "shed" anything, but actually *took on* human flesh. He wasn't "born again into Spirit", even a cursory read of the post-Resurrection events in the Gospels (and also 1 Cor. 15) show a *PHYSICAL* Christ, with a *PERFECTED* body. He wasn't "spirit", but a miraculous, perfected being.
Charliemackmack 9 months ago
Religion without real faith is possibly the greatest evil on our earth.
Cursed be that love and unity which cannot be preserved except at the peril of the word of God.”
- Martin Luther
yarrw 1 year ago
Jesus died for the world as the 'lamb of God'. That is a reference to the first passover where a the blood of a lamb saved the Hebrew people from God's judgment but many of those Israelites were rebellious and God still dealt with them later in the wilderness. We don't know what judgment God had in mind at the crucifixion but we do know that He flooded the earth at the time of Noah because of violence and sin.
P.S. It's not a sin to 'know God' which can also mean to be 'like God'.
yarrw 1 year ago
At the time of the first passover we can see that not all the Hebrews were spiritually saved even though they were protected by the blood of the lamb. They were punished later because of their lack of faith and rebellion. The work of Jesus was for the "whole world" to give us time to change(repent) and have faith by being born of the spirit(Jn 3:5). God might have destroyed it all (heavens and earth) otherwise.
yarrw 1 year ago
ALL sins WILL be forgiven unto men but he who blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven. christ died for the sins of the whole world the bible says so but those who truly believe that jesus is the christ WILL be saved regardless of works. gods wrath has been satisfied. work on your faith not works and god will do the rest
zaporojes 1 year ago
john calvin was not a good man. Calvanism is a flat out misrepresentation of scripture and imo evil. No i am not an armenianist either. Any time you have a doctrine named after a man, and in order to defend that you change the meaning of scriptures to agree with your doctrine you learned from that man.. you have gone into heresy. PERIOD. You guys need to read a real history of the man John Calvin. Teh guy was a creep. geneva during his time of influence was a totalitarian nightmare.
TheHellbinder 1 year ago
@TheHellbinder
Quote:
"Calvin was not a good man."
So? what if he was the worst person on earth...what does that have to do with the doctrines of Grace?
Nothing.
Quote:
"Any time you have a doctrine named after a man, and in order to defend that you change the meaning of scriptures to agree with your doctrine you learned from that man.. you have gone into heresy. "
Lol...I don't follow Calvin...I follow a consistent reading of scripture..
This is horrible reasoning....
rpavich 1 year ago
from Luther to Calvin: what happened?
Rico8458 1 year ago
Cool Common Grace Scripture Gen 25:5-6 "And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had . . . "
RomansGalatians 1 year ago
is this a calvinist video??
jordanelka 1 year ago
Isaiah 54:10
"Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD, who has compassion on you.
MODERATECALVINISM 1 year ago
The problem with Jn 3:16 is this word 'begotten'. It implies another 'son of God'. Who is it? Adam?
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
The word translated "begotten" is not about birth order or even being born....
It's the word: μονογενής which speaks of rank or honor.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Using these different rules of exegesis we can see how doctrine has changed from what the Apostle Paul preached. Modern bible translations are even teaching a different doctrines to that of the hellfire and brimstone KJV published in 1611.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
3 questions:
1.) What doctrine has changed?
2.) How would you even know that?
3.) What does that have to do with the meaning of monogenes?
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Paul's disciple Luke writes in lk 3:38 "Adam son of God". If this is correct then 'monogenes' cannot be translated 'one and only son'.
In 1 Cor 15 we see a summary of the doctrine Paul was teaching. Take note of 1Cor 15:45 Jesus the second Adam(second son of God).
Modern translations teach a different Jesus to what Paul preached.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
The term "monogenes" doesn't appear in Luke 3:38; you are mistaken.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich If we use good rules of exegesis we will translate 'monogenes' as 'only born son' because in Luke 3:38 we find Gods 'created son', Adam. This is why the translation 'one and only son' is incorrect.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
I just pointed out that monogenes doesn't even appear in Luke 3:38...period end of story.....so it has NO BEARING on the semantic range of monogenes.
Sorry but you're dead wrong.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Modern translations teach "Jesus the one and only Son of God". Why then do we still have Luke 3:38 and 1Cor 15:45. These should be removed or changed to fit our current Christian doctrine.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
What does the description of Jesus as the unique incarnate Son have to do with Adam being described as the Son of God?
What does it have to do with Christ being described as the "last Adam"?
You're making unwarranted assumptions about the meaning of those passages.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Not one of the 'types of Christ' from Seth to Solomon was ever a firstborn or one and only. All firstborns were rejected by God (Cane to Absalom and all firstborn of Egypt). How many times have I heard the sermon "Abrahams only son". Every time I always think, what about Ishmael? I get tired of hearing what I call new era or new age Christianity. What about returning to first century doctrines?
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
What makes you think that these aren't first century doctrines? that's another one of your unsubstantiated assertions...
Are we though with this? You are making no sense. If you've got something solid to bring...then bring it.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Paul summarises his doctrines in 1Cor 15. My interpretation of it does not match modern teaching. These Judeans (Jews) and other Hebrews seemed to teach a restoration of Eden (or paradise) through a savior who would be a son of man (Adam) and so a new good Adam. This maybe their Jesus but we preach a different Jesus.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
And I'll ask again...on what basis do you substantiate this?
Again...this is going no where...do you have anything grounded in reality?
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Maybe I could use the favorite bible school scripture in Timothy, all scripture is good for doctrine... but I prefer Christs warnings about tradition such as 'beware of the leaven of the pharisees. What about Colossians 2:8. (Of course the elemental spirits are based on the Greek ideas, earth, water, fire and air, with Zeus being god of the air etc.)
To tell the truth Jesus mentions only one important doctrine which He emphasises 3 times John 3. We must be born of the Spirit.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
None of what you just said makes any sense...
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich I assume you have never been to bible school. I was taught about the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter (Babylonian goddess Ishtar) in church history. This is not serious because it is only religion. Real faith is a very personal thing.
yarrw 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yarrw
And that makes even less sense.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Modern bible translation ignores the exegesis rules of time and place and instead uses replacement theology (the church replaces Israel and the Hebrews). What about the Jewish tradition of Jerusalem be on the site of the original garden in Eden? If the origin of Christianity was in the ancient Hebrew religion then why are our traditions based in Roman paganism?
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
And again....I'll painfully ask you to provide evidence....
Did I mention that this is going no where?
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich Religions are faith based and the closest thing to evidence is scripture itself. If you reinterpret Hebrews 11:1 as 'Faith is the evidence of the unseen(spirit)'. This Spirit (Hebrew - ruach) is found in Gen 41:38 Ps 51:11 and so on in the 'great cloud of witnesses'.
Read Jn 6:63 then you might just have a chance of understanding this mystical side of the Judeo Christian belief system. "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh is useless."
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
Another nonsense post that i don't understand.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich You do get it. Religion itself is nonsense. Take the contradiction between Christian doctrine and scripture in 2 Peter 3:10-13 " according to His promise we wait for new heavens and a NEW Earth"
There is my evidence that Christianity has some nonsense doctrines.
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
You make no sense..are we done?
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich I have a long list if you have the patience?
It's no wonder Isaac Newton became a Unitarian if you take the scripture 1Jn 5:7-8 as evidence of a trinity. Makes no sense does it?
yarrw 1 year ago
@yarrw
No...lol..I have no patience for this...consider this the end of the conversation.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich What a pity. I was about to question all of my family churches TULIP doctrines. That's good for a laugh. They preach you must be saved so they must have doubts themselves.
To be serious for a moment, I will say that I can't find any fault with Jn 3:3-5. ( We must be born of the Spirit.)
yarrw 1 year ago
Thx LaneCh. This was an awesome series! I learned so much and it has inspired me that I can actually learn to divide scripture rightly!
Who was the person speaking in this video?
I'd like to read more of what he has written!
Man the Word of God - especially when presented so well - is sooooo awesome. There is nothing in my life that is as good as the Word of God!
fxtrader92 1 year ago
1) God is love. (1 John 4:8)
2) Love is not jealous (1 Corinthians 13:4)
3) the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (exodus 34)
gcarter214 2 years ago
God "so" loved His orderly arraignment (kosmos) that the believing all ... shall not parish. Love in this vs is agapao or agape - see II John 1:6 - that we walk in His commandments. "So" puts a condition on the word loved ... we must be walking in His commandments. "whosoever" is a bad translation. Not in the original text of scripture. It is pas ho = the all - synecdoche - See "ge" in the greek it would have been used in this vs if it meant EVERYONE - few that be there find it Matt 7:14
definewords 2 years ago
Comment removed
definewords 2 years ago
Comment removed
nbanuchu 2 years ago
Oh I see he touches on common grace and God DOES love the whole world here. Good. Thanks for posting this, Lane. Kielar is always excellent.
terriergal 2 years ago
Terriergal, with respect to Jn 3:16, the grace implied by the word "loved" in the phrase, "God so loved the world," whether one wants to call it "common" or not is irrelevant. The love here is granted to all men and is a love that intends the salvation of every man. Once a person believes, salvation is effected. The love here is specifically the love demonstrated at the Cross. From my perspective, and if I understand the terms correctly, the Cross is not a demonstration of "common grace".
nbanuchu 2 years ago
God's love is effectual. Consider the end result if we say God loves everybody: Does God love those who end up in hell? What kind of love is it that God would have that would send them to hell? God's love is effectual to save every soul that he has elected to show mercy upon. The Shepherd shall not lose one of his sheep: for he loves every one of them-so much that he laid down his life for them-he has ransomed nations for those which are precious in his sight (Isaiah 43:3-4).
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain, the Bible says be imitators of God. So, then, if God's love is as you suggest, then it is legitimate for us to love only a select few and the others we can, at the least ignore or, at the most, hate. I mean, that loving as God loves.
nbanuchu 1 year ago
Jn 3:16 states that God loved the world in such a manner as to send his only Son to die for their sins. It would be duplicitous of God to say, "I love you but I am not going to save you", would it not? Again, Jn 3:16 is NOT a demonsstration of "common" grace but of that love for all men, which intends their salvation if they believe.
nbanuchu 2 years ago
@terriergal. Jn 3:16 is not talking about "common" grace. Keilar's mention of it is quite out of context and unwarranted by the text itself.
nbanuchu 2 years ago
1. The language resources he cites show his assertion is false regarding how world is defined with respect to "believers only"
2. He repeatedly argues for context to determine meaning of "world" but does not once address the context of Jn 3:16 showing how it demands such a definition.
nbanuchu 2 years ago
I don't think it wise to slice hairs. It is fine to agree to disagree. I don't believe belittling other evangelists of this precious gospel is edifying to the church or benefits others who look on us in mockery. It's still not a black and white issue.
lowellboone 2 years ago
We don't close our minds because of our religious traditions. "open our hearts, o Lord to learn more from your Word." Let's study more, be open, and judge it carefully from God's word itself. Thank God for the science of biblical interpretation. It's God's science to interpret His Word. "pride" leads us to destruction. When we are humble the Holy Spirit will speak to us and lead us into the truth. God bless us all.
sarnicm2002 2 years ago
this is clearly a false prophet. There are numerous examples of equivocation and fallacious reasoning in general that the video contains it's own refutation. He doesn't know the difference between salvation and election, and this whole popular heresy directly opposes Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Great swelling words of emptiness and fables for itching (sinful) ears. Without holiness no man will see the Lord.
jb091661 2 years ago
This explanation is outstanding. The use of scriptures and examples helps to enlighten understanding of John 3:16.
mjh0099 2 years ago
Comment removed
nbanuchu 2 years ago
Comment removed
nbanuchu 2 years ago
Ok, I'll bite. How do you know what is being said by Jn 3:16 is not to be take at face value. (i.e what you see is want you get.)
mjh0099 2 years ago
I do take Jn 3:16 at "face value". How it is interpreted in the video does not take it at face value but distorts the text in order to force "world" to mean "believers only."
nbanuchu 2 years ago
@mjh0099 i agree.. outstanding.
ytcdcramer 2 years ago
Only the Calvanists have the "keys to understanding these difficult passages"! RUN RUN RUN!!! I think it's clear that "whosoever believeth on him" sheds light on what and who the "world" is! The world is the "whosoever"! The passage is self explainitory. I don't need Dr. So-n-So to give me the keys of understanding! This is a mark of every cult! REMEMBER? It's funny how this joker never mentions the context in light of "whosoever". This guy's god damns souls to hell for his own pleasure!
holinesspentecostal 2 years ago
"This guy's god damns souls to hell for his own pleasure!"
Yet God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Just look up Ezekiel 18:23, 32.
Brightstar27 2 years ago
Amen! I love Ezekiel 18!
holinesspentecostal 2 years ago
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
I am a calvinist but I believe that God Almighty offered up his only begotten Son Jesus Christ for the whole world or more specifically he (Jesus) died for every man, woman, and child but only those whom have been elected unto eternal salvation will believe on him (Jesus) because they have been enabled by his (God's) grace.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
Truthknower 2 years ago
another rude KJ Onlyist.
Pdrum2 2 years ago
Didn' t I just explain that to you. Are you really that obtuse? Let's try again KJV- "ONLY BEGOTTEN" is translated from ONE word in the Greek- monogenes. Different translations will have varying terms, but they all have the same meaning. Anyone can look up the original Greek words and check their usage using a Greek Lexicon. The warning given in Rev. 22:18-19 refers to THE BOOK OF REVELATION, that's why it says -the book of these prophecies. The Bible is not ONE book, but a collection of many,
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
itfan- Now, you're changing the subject. We were discussing the term "firstborn". You obviously now realize how wrong you were. As for the term "begotten" in those passages, you're mistaken again. It's not "begotten", but ONLY BEGOTTEN. One word in the Greek- Monogenes. It carries the meaning of uniquely-born. I don't know where you're getting your so-called stats & info from, but you're highly misinformed. Your "sources" probably don't even list those so-called "scholars".
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
Only begotten? The word BEGOTTEN john 3:16, john 3:18 cannot be found in rsv & niv. Why? Because it has been changed!
According to:
Revelation 22:18-19
ANYONE who changes or DELETES ANYTHING from the Bible, God will add to him the plagues in the Bible.
itcrowdfan92 2 years ago
You can easily Google "firstborn in scripture" to verify this.
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
Go read your RSV & NIV, and go to John 3:16, John 3:18 and you will NOT find the word: "begotten" in there.
Why? The RSV goes back to the earliest manuscripts, and they could not find the word "begotten" there, so they threw it out + labeled it as HUMAN HANDIWORK.
Therefore, Jesus was NOT the begotten son, he was a son in the sense of a slave of God, who submitted his will to God, as all prophets were "sons" of God, meaning slaves and messengers of God.
itcrowdfan92 2 years ago
icfan92 cont. - (forgot to finish my sentence)...is denotative of the person(s) relationship with God. God called the NATION of Israel "MY FIRSTBORN", obviously, Israel was not the first nation established. It was given the preeminence by God, when he chose them for HIS purpose. Words have more than one meaning even in English. In the New Testament, the Greek word for world is kosmos, which has different meaning depending on the context. Saying something is "clear cut" is incorrect.
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
Your the one with a SHALLOW UNDERSTANDING:
You THINK Jesus was a BEGOTTEN son?
YOU FAIL TO REALIZE that in" John 3:16, John 3:18:
The word "Begotten" has been THROWN OUT by 32 scholars of highest status, backed by 50 denominations, who say the word: begotten is: a fabrication and HUMAN HANDIWORK. WHO SAYS THAT?
NOT ME. It was: 32 scholars of highest status, backed by 50 denominations.
YOU WANT TO BELIEVE IN A FABRICATED WORD? Your illogical.
itcrowdfan92 2 years ago
F.Y.I- the term "whosoever" is not is the original Greek. The passage refers to "the believing ones". In other words, Christ died for the elect that would, through God's providence, ultimately come to saving faith.
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
What does "firstborn" mean?
"the offspring who came first in the order of birth."
CLEAR CUT meaning.
It is impossible for more than 1 child to be born at the same exact time.
itcrowdfan92 2 years ago
icfan92- You obviously didn't understand a single thing I tried to explain to you. We are not dealing with writings that were originally in English. Ancient cultures have deeper meanings attached to the more basic ones. "Firstborn" has both literal AND figurative meaning. Typically, it means preeminence and is denotative of the person(or persons as the nation of Israel is "firstborn"). I can't make it more clear to you. You must free yourself from the shackles of your shallow understanding.
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
@itcrowdfan92 firstborn,,or perhaps.. Ranking above all others, as in importance or quality; (foremost:).../of all who have ever been born, of
God,Jesus ranks above them all.
.Almost clear cut,but not quite.It can also be first in order of birth.
jossalv1 1 year ago
Yes God ranks above everyone, but not Jesus according to John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3.
itcrowdfan92 1 year ago
ICfan92- The term "first-born" does not necessarily denote chronological order, but sometimes refers to preeminence. You can't simply support your argument based on English(recent) grammar. You have to take the historical, cultural grammatical considerations in their respective contexts.
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
At first; I thought you were talking about the Holy Bible.
Clearly I was mistaken.
That is, unless you are using some of that 21st century perspective you were speaking against. That stuff completely ignores and re-edits the Bible and puts forth false boasts and claims against what is actually written in the Bible.
Because only in a 21st century perspective does this part of the series make any sense.
I wonder how many of God's people have you decieved with this single video?
oedivelgoog 2 years ago
Exactly O...this video is deceptive.... SO many voices...this is a mess!!!
TiredofHype09 2 years ago
(Isa28:9-10) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.10)For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Prophesy (Isa 53:12)/ The fulfillment of that in Mark.15:28
Some so called bible's don't have Mark.15:28 in themanuscript's from Alexandria Egypt (Deu.17:16). Also Look up (Rev.2:15) doctrine of the Nicolaitans
TheSearcher24 2 years ago
In john 3:16, the word "begotten" has been thrown out in new testament, by 32 Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 corporate Christian denominations .
Luke 5:16 "(Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God."
Matthew 26:44: So leaving them, he (Jesus) went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word."
How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe, the all knowing, most powerful, when he's praying to God? It doesn't make sense.
itcrowdfan92 2 years ago
In Psalm 2:7, the word "begotten" has been thrown out in new testament, by 32 Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 corporate Christian denominations .
Futhuremore, John 3:16 contradicts:
Jeremiah 31:9 and also contradicts Exodus 4:22 and also Psalms 2:7.
One places says Ephraim is God's firstborn, in another place, it says Jesus was the (ONLY) son sacrificed, in another place says in:
Exodus 4:22, that Israel is God's firstborn.
These verses contradict one another.
itcrowdfan92 2 years ago
Comment removed
VeritasSolus 2 years ago
By the way - there is a mistake at the end. The last verse which was quoted is in 1 Peter 2:8-9, not 2 Peter :).
geneUA 2 years ago
This was really helpful. Thanks so much.
geneUA 2 years ago
1 Peter 3:18-20 18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom[a] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
1apadilla 2 years ago
This guys appears very arrogant putting down all who diagree with his interpretation of the text. Is he a Greek scholar?
nbanuchu 2 years ago
This is a very deep subject for me. IDK any Scripture to back up my belief, but I feel that everyone, at some point in their life, is afforded the opportunity for true salvation. Wether they receive it or not, is on them. This doctrine is too much like trying to put God in a box (that He doesn't fit in!).
OlySezHey 3 years ago
The end bible reading is from 1 Peter not 2 Peter. In case anyone searches for it as i did and became confused!
chrispeldon 3 years ago
there is a big difference between reading and understanding the Word of God. At some point every christian will move from reading into understanding. That will happen when the christian will finally deny himself for good and let the Lord teach him and reveal to him. Heresies have always been around and always will always attck the Truth. Be careful what u believe to be the "truth".
777cata 3 years ago
So you can disagree with calvinist theology and still be saved? I am finding all these videos eye opening.
chrispeldon 3 years ago
Well, it depends on what extent. For example, believing that Christ died substitutionarily for people is exclusively a Reformed doctrine. The historic, classical Arminian denies that Christ died substitutionarily for those who believe in Him. If one denies this, they've denied an essential of the Gospel and cannot be saved. However, many "Arminians" today do hold to sub atonement even though they're inconsistent as to why.
LaneCh 3 years ago
will wesley be saved
chrispeldon 3 years ago
If he trusted in Christ alone for his salvation and not in himself and his own ability even one bit, yes.
LaneCh 3 years ago
@LaneCh but isn't that still doing something? There's still the act of, giving up controle so to say.
BloodSweatTiers 10 months ago
Were wesley and whitfield and edwards etc calvinists
chrispeldon 3 years ago
Whitefield and Edwards: Yes.
Wesley: Definitely not.
LaneCh 3 years ago
So, if this takes such linguistic machinations.....what of illiterates? Hellbound?
prospero811 3 years ago
Excellent, thanks
denverwani 3 years ago
Great explanation to the most misquoted verse in Scripture. thanks for posting!
CulbRus 3 years ago
Thanks so much for this, Lane, it is wonderful! The second part had the most impact for me, but it's all excellent.
MotorCityPinup 3 years ago
This is a very well done video. I appreciate Mark's gentle presentation.
Just put me in the catagory of "Uneducated, Silly, and Spritually Blind." The first rule of "Universally accepted Bibical Hermaneutics" is if Plain sense makes good sense; look for no other sense.
Mark says "If we are to understand the mind of God..." This is a pitfall of Calvinism. Who are we to know the mind of God? Some concept of God's nature are beyond our comprehension.
mark95319531 3 years ago
"This is a pitfall of Calvinism. Who are we to know the mind of God?"
You should throw your Bible away because all the theology contained therein might make you know God a little bit better, and according to you, that's a pitfall! We should not presume to know who God is or what He thinks about certain issues, nor what He has done!
skalapunk 3 years ago
Good afternoon skalapunk. This may be pushing a point. The Bible is a 1200 page book that illustates how God deals with mankind. We receive instruction, admonition, and encouragement. We are also offered salvation. But there are some concepts that we will not understand this side of heaven. How God reconciles his knowledge of our final destination and man's will, I think, is one of those unexplainable concepts.
I do know God, and wish to know him better. But I do not know his mind.
mark95319531 3 years ago
Jesus here just preached a very unpopular message and most of his disciples left him. Please take time to read the passage in context. Verse 68 peter says We have believed again mans view we chose Jesus. Verse 70 Did I Myself not choose you once again Gods view. Finally we see Gods redemptive plan yet one of you is a devil
I pray that is finds you well and helps.
Yours in the Service of the Son,
R.J.
theatwo 3 years ago
mark95319531: Good answer!
The only other thing I'd remind anyone who reads this is that it's God's Holy Spirit that leads us to truth. That is what I claim my sense comes from :)
John 15:26, 16:7&13. We'll never FULLY know the mind of God in this lifetime, but I'm gonna keep learning what I can!
OlySezHey 3 years ago
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
Thank you Jesus for your glorious mercy!!!
Enoch2 3 years ago
the last verse was 1 Peter 2:8b-9 as opposed to 2 Peter 2:8b-9.
Probably just a mistake.
Habit7 3 years ago
So does God 'make' people just so they can go to hell?
theheat151 3 years ago
That's a bit of a caricature, but He does make people who He knows are going to hell.
Do you hold the position that God looks down the corridors of time and sees if a person will believe in Him then they become elect or predestined that way?
LaneCh 3 years ago
I do not deny with what you are saying. Some calvinists i heard say some were created just they can go to hell i.e. George Bush, Hitler, Saddam etc etc...
I just can't fathom the idea since God knows if you will accept him or not that he would say have you die at a young age or put you in nation where the Gospel is not preached.
theheat151 3 years ago
Hell is eternal death..God really only knows the answer to this,you know he does choose some,but who is to say what is going to happen to everyone,only God.
pricelesspam 2 years ago
Although a fairly good job of explaining the word "cosmos"/"world" has been done in this video. It still does not explain the full meaning of the verse because the word "SHOULD" has not been dealt with.
All those who have been drinking SHOULD not drive but take a taxi instead.
All those who have been drinking SHALL not drive but take a taxi instead. Two completely different meanings. Should indicates duty and obligation while shall means definitely will, something that is inevitable.
ds8489 3 years ago
The greek word translated to "should not" (not just "should") is μή and it means:
no, not lest
It's translated "cannot" in Luk_16:26, Gal_5:17, Heb_4:15, Heb_12:27.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
(Gal 5:17)
LaneCh 3 years ago
I am a student at Lee University. I am a second semester freshman and i took a New Testament class last semester. I learned that John was writing to the Greeks or "Hellenists" not other Jews. Matthew's gospel was wrote to the Jews. Look at Matthew's language. Mark wrote to the Romans, and Luke wrote to the Gentiles. Why wouldn't Jesus die for everyone? He gave his son to the World. Also remember God is in Eternity looking back at our future. a.k.a. Foreknowledge.
ironjehoshaphat 3 years ago
How do you deal with Romans 8:29 (foreknow is a verb; not a noun and God is the one who does it)
Also, do you hold that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin?
LaneCh 3 years ago
My main intention was not to win an argument. I just do not agree with that fact that I have prayed foor my parents to know Jesus and they would be predestined not to know him. I have faith that they will be saved.
I do believe blasphemey against the Holy Spirit is a sin.
I think there is a balance somewhere in this theological thing. Because If the Bible is God's Word then why are the ones who Believe in Jesus can not agree with what it says.
John 3:17-Why send Jesus into the world...
ironjehoshaphat 3 years ago
Well, even if your intention was not to win an argument, surely you realized that if you presented one it would be addressed. I realize your concerns, but how do you know that your parents have not been predestined? If they're not believers now, that doesn't mean they won't ever be.
LaneCh 3 years ago
I'll answer your question, but it will take some interaction on your part. You agree that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin, and you hold that Jesus died for all the sins of everyone. First, why did Jesus die? Do you hold that it was for forgiveness of sins?
LaneCh 3 years ago
Why did you pray for your parents if God already have done his part and it is their decision now? Do you want him to disrespect their free will in order to work in their hearts?
We are to pray for people to come to God because it is all his work and his decision. And it is comforting news that God's will not ours will be done.
They disagree because of many things. Main one is taking verses which fit their theology instead taking theology out of verses.
masterowa 3 years ago
This doctrine of free will is flawed. Man in his sinful state is controlled by the sinful nature. Your "free will" is totally influenced by the sin nature and you will do evil all the time because of it. No man who does evil all the time can turn from sin and toward righteousness. You do not understand the sin nature and the affect it has on the soul.
God intervention is the ONLY way that man can turns from their sins.
simone56 3 years ago
exccelent comment.
777cata 3 years ago
Continued from last post. Why would God send his son to the world and only save so many people? Why should people go to the ends of the earth? There are still some places that have never seen a white man. They defenitely have never heard of Jesus. Again sinners would ask; Why would a loving God predestine so many to make it to Heaven? They would see it reason to join Oprah's church. I think God could save Oprah. I have prayed for her and countless other "famous" people. Dios Te Bendiga.
ironjehoshaphat 3 years ago
I agree that he could save anyone, but I hold what Eph 1:4-5 teaches about only those who he predestined are the ones who will be saved. I've prayed for Oprah and other unbelievers, too. Predestination isn't a done deal in the respect that once you believe the doctrine, you just give up on evangelism. I've found it to be actually the opposite. (cont...)
LaneCh 3 years ago
As for, "Why would God send his son to the world and only save so many people?" Do you hold that everyone will be saved? If not, then you believe that He will only save so many people, too. Matthew spoke of this, too: "And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS: for he will save his people from their sins. (Mat 1:21)" Note that he didn't say, "He will make it possible for people to be saved"; he said, "He will save his people..."
LaneCh 3 years ago
Ok I see what you are saying.
ironjehoshaphat 3 years ago
I will think about what we have talked about. It was nice talking to you. Thanks for the information.
ironjehoshaphat 3 years ago
You're welcome. I appreciate your amity. Take care.
LaneCh 3 years ago
Is it Jesus or Yahshua that was said in Matthew 1:21?
theheat151 3 years ago
This is for Lane,I do believe we were chosen before the foundation of the world,but do you think the Holy Spirit still comes to everyone at least once in their life even though they have not been chosen?I know the Bible says many are called,but few are chosen,however I've never seen all are called anywhere.I know that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.Does this just mean the Elect will be the only ones who call upon the name of the Lord?
CBALLEN 3 years ago
What is the name of the song in the background? It is beautiful.
Great message. Thank God for Mark Kielar.
jongo2142 3 years ago
1 Peter 3:9 "God is not willing that any should perish."
God has completely done everything in Jesus Christ ultimately dying on the cross for our salvation.
Canadian925 3 years ago
Actually, that's 2Peter 3:9, and if you read it in context, you may not have the same opinion of what it means.
LaneCh 3 years ago
The context of that verse in Peter is refering to believers. God isn't willing that THEY perish, so they (believers) won't.
JohnO318 3 years ago
VERY important point here. There seems to be a lot of emphasis here on John and what "he" meant or what time he wrote it in, or what context it was in or what he was trying to say. Every word in our Bible is from God himself with an exact purpose for ALL times. (All scripture is given by inspiration of God--2 Timothy 3:16) The Gospel of John is part of the Word of God-not a sunday sermon! Lets not relegate it to just that. Every word, every phrase, has a purpose-we need only search to find it.
rossfanman 3 years ago
Excellent presentation. Five stars. Thank you.
JDtheMusicMan 3 years ago
I agree with this video but I think it is still a mystery how God works. Determinism and Free Will seem to contradict but it may be possible that both work together. The elect do get saved but passages like Mat 24:24, where it says that false teachers may lead the elect astray, shows that it is a mystery how it works. Or 2 Peter 2:1 - it says that false teachers will deny the Master that bought them. Who is the master but Christ? Christ bought them by his blood on the cross. Its a mystery.
gormofittler 3 years ago
Well, not exactly. What does someone do when they buy something? They own it. Is not God the ultimate owner of all men? The Scriptures say that he's the Potter and we are pots so when 2Peter 2:1 says "denying the Master who bought them" this means that they deny the one who has ownership over them. Jesus is Lord of everyone but the only ones who will confess that He is are those who are saved. It's not so much of a mystery after all.
LaneCh 3 years ago
"Determinism and free will seem to contradict"
I agree, this is tough to understand at times. And all human analogies break down at some point, but the best way I know how to describe it is, my 7 yr. old son, has a certain amount of freedom at home to do as he wishes. However I am his father, and therefore my freedom is greater than his. This makes his "freedom" limited as a result of my sovereignty at our home. This means he does as he wishes, but not without my approval or disapproval. cont
budcarfan 3 years ago
Saying God chooses, but we have freewill, does seem like a contradiction, but as the previous analogy indicates, sovereignty, and freewill can work together.
Now if we say that God is sovereign, and humans are "autonomous"... this would be a contradiction.
budcarfan 3 years ago
Actually Mat. 24:24 says, "IF POSSIBLE, even the elect" would be lead astray. The language sounds like the elect will perservere.
Godcorpusa 3 years ago
No calvinist denies that man as a will but we deny it is free. Can you freely choose to love someone you were born hating? No, it is a super natural gift that allows us to make Christ precious to us.
jgrig2 3 years ago
great video, thanks for posting Lane, blessings on you!
Daninkorea 3 years ago
the lines of argumentation are more based on logical deductions that "world" must not mean what Arminians think it to mean due to the clarity of other Scriptures. That is not exegesis, that is logic, and I therefore reject and don't feel the three videos really gave strong enough evidence in the form of positive assertions and sound exegesis of the tezt itself. This especially in the lightof the same author claiming that Jesus is prop. for not only are sins, butthose of the whole world!
CSoul781 3 years ago
Do you hold that Adolf Hitler is in Heaven?
LaneCh 3 years ago
can you guys share some scriptures about people being in hell or heaven at this very moment? couse I beleve Christ will resurect the DEAD not the living.thanks
flavmusicman 3 years ago
I have no idea what your dichotomy means. The Bible plainly teaches that there are people in hell and heaven.
LaneCh 3 years ago
of course not lane, i took that from first John, where there is an obvious distinction between those who are believers and those who aren't, but 1 John indeed gives an argument for the atonement extending to all the human race, not just the elect- hence the reason eric svendsen is what he terms a 4.5 calvinist, explaining that the intent of atonement of the cross is not just for the elect. As for logic, yes we should use logical dedections based upon texts, but if that's the only way in which
CSoul781 3 years ago
one comes to an understanding of John 3:16, then that is not good enough for me when it comes to actually proprly exegeting it. If one simply makes the claim that John 3:16 must be speakng of the elect cause of the variety of usage of "world" throughout the N.T. and that other passages are clear on the doctrine of election, then they're subtlety taking John 3:16 out of context and not really giving strong positive assertions of what the text is indeed saying- that is weak interpretation
CSoul781 3 years ago
Well, you deny that Adolf Hitler is in Heaven so my next question is, "Do you know what the word 'propitiation' means?"
LaneCh 3 years ago
yes i do- and such a propitiation was intended not for us only, but for those of the whole world
CSoul781 3 years ago
Just to clarify for everyone who may not be aware, "propitiation" means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In one comment you imply that Jesus was the offering which turns away wrath for every person who ever lived (ie. the whole world.) In the next comment, you implied that Adolf Hitler is not in Heaven therefore God's wrath was not turned away from him. Do you see the problem here? The problem is that if you hold to your view of "the whole world", you're inconsistent.
LaneCh 3 years ago
actually the problem is not some inconsistency of mine, the problem is you're not willing to assume that I have indeed taken the 1 John 2:2 quote into context, where chapter 2 is contextually linked to chapter 1, where it says in verse 9 that if "we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins"- I doubt Hitler truly confessed- the fact is the propitiation is open to all, though conditioned on those who confess- and is shown to be true by works of love (1 John 2:9 onwards)
CSoul781 3 years ago
A propitiation is effectual. In other words, an offering that appeases wrath actually appeases wrath. If Christ is a propitiation, which the Bible teaches He is, He actually appeases the wrath of God. If he actually appeased the wrath of God for everyone, then no one goes to Hell. That makes Jesus schizophrenic and a liar because he preaches about people actually going to Hell. I'll keep with the Biblical view. Your inconsistency is already documented in these comments.
LaneCh 3 years ago
great point! problem here is you are not looking at the verse contextually, just logically showing the effectiveness of the nature of "propitiation"- John obviously makes a distintion between "us" and the whole world, yet still claims propitiation is for both. I understand your point about the sufficiency of the nature of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, but you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with John the Apostle- my understanding of this issue in John is sound
CSoul781 3 years ago
John obviously does make a distinction, but who was involved in the conversation John had in the epistle? 1) John 2) The readers and hearers So when John says, "not only for us" who is the "us"? Was it not him and the people the epistle was addressed to? Ok, with that said, then, why does he then refer to "the whole world"? It's because not every believer was reading his epistle at that moment hence he's saying that it's not only for him and his immediate audience but for all believers.
LaneCh 3 years ago
even better point lane, understood and not at all invalid. that drives us to the question then of who does "world" refer to here? while i cannot assume it is the literal whole world, I find your claim that it is all believers other than his immediate audience wanting. One reason- i don't think John would think his immediate audience would question whether such a propitiation extends to all other Christians also- therefore not having to include that
CSoul781 3 years ago
i find your understanding of "world" here begging the question: why would John have to mention all other believers also, as if his immediate audience/hearers would be questioning whether the other believers received the same blessing of Christ as their propitiation? whatever "world" means in 1 John, it's a bit silly to assume it means other believers other than the immediate audience- especially if one can't positively assert how- and your assertion seems weak and anachronistic
Skindiggity781 3 years ago
Calvinists seem not to be able to handle the idea of God making sufficient atonement yet still condition such effectiveness upon a human's response. I know such an idea sounds like it comes from Rome, but it is not inconsistent with the Bible either. I am obviously not a Calvinist, but I find it disturbing that Calvinist's view of God's redeeming work seeks to protect the sufficiency of such an atonement to the point of limiting it's intent-this i cannot agree with and disagree with reformed
CSoul781 3 years ago
Regardless if you disagree with the meaning of the word "world" here, do you not agree that both views limit the atonement in a respect? The Calvinist limits the number of people Christ sufficiently died substitutionarily for while your position limits the effect of Christ's death on the cross. It's not only a matter of I'd rather believe in a Savior that actually saves, but it's what the Bible teaches in such passages as "Christ WILL save his people" as stated in Matthew.
LaneCh 3 years ago