John 3:16

[archierieus]

Scripture is silent on plenty of issues...what then? Isn't Valid Exegesis labeled by opinion?

If Scripture is silent on an issue, then exegesis stops, there is nothing to exegete. Anything beyond that is exposition, commentary and the like--but not exegesis. It is critically important to recognize the distinction. As for what constitutes valid exegesis, the data rule, it is doing science, and the importance of accuracy and vigorous peer review cannot be underestimated. Opinions routinely are cut to pieces and trashed in pursuit of accuracy and truth. That goes with the territory.

 

[bleitzel]

On where grace comes from the place that lays it out best is Ephesians 2:8-10. Now as for saying that that Grace is what is referred to as the Gift of God is not going to be accurate, cause grace by definition is a free/unmerited gift from God. So to say that grace is the gift does not define what the gift is.

Ok, so in a way you're right, that Grace is grace. But the Grace of God is not an unknown thing, we know that the author here means that God has forgiven us for our sins through the blood of Christ, and this is an unearned gift, hence it is called grace. I'm sorry if you didn't know that, it changes how the rest of the text reads.

As for being predestined into salvation, I very much believe that God has elected those that He would save before the foundation of the world.

After this sentence you go on to talk about workmanship which really had nothing to do with the question so let's just stop here. You believe that some are predestined for salvation and some for damnation. The Jews thought that they were this special group and that the Gentiles were not. Then Jesus came to save all men. The Jews hated this. Paul tried to explain it to them over and over. That they were not the only chosen ones. They were not predestined to salvation and the Gentiles were predestined to damnation, no, all men were predestined. All were chosen. Some were chosen in a sense to be His family, and some were chosen in a sense to be adopted into that family.

Paul used the Jews' own misunderstanding that they were God's chosen people by birhtright, because of the covenenants, to reason with them that the Gentiles now were shown to have been adopted into that family by the coming of Christ. Later on, Paul goes on to try to dispel the Jews' misunderstanding anyways and show that the only real way to have eternal life is through faith anyways.

But there never was one predestined group, as the Jews believed, or as you now
believe. This was an errant misconception that led the Jews to some pretty horrible conclusions about their standing with God, and eventually led to the crucifixtion of Jesus. In their days all of the bigwigs in Jewish theology preached this teaching, the Pharisees, the Saducees. Today this misconception is adhered to again with the same fervor and is also taught by the bigwigs of Christianity. Hopefully it doesn't lead all of them to the same fate of the Jews' in Jesus' day.

In Eph 1:11 Paul speaking about Christ says:
"11In him we were also chosen,[made heirs] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,"

Notice two parts, first the "chosen " can also be translated "made heirs", see my argument above regarding the family of God and the adoption of Gentiles.

Second, notice the "also". The Jews thought they were chosen, well, here Paul says we, meaning the Gentiles, were chosen also. No one is "un-chosen." Predestination as you understand it does not exist.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Then you seem to be saying that the major versions which follow that are 'antiquated'? For example, the Amplified Bible is antiquated in Jn. 3:16?

Yes. No one dares "change" the most famous verse in the Bible. Though of course it's not a change, just a clarification.

No intention to do such a thing. But take a look at what the penitent sinner is to do in order for the priest to make atonement for him, in those chapters.

Provided the penitent complies with the conditions. Otherwise, we see the words repeated, there shall be no atonement for him or similar words.

Which is a limited atonement. This is typologically fulfilled in Christ who "by one offering perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."

 

[PT Calvinist]

Gotta look up the reference, Paul says Jesus died for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for all the sins of the whole world.

Would you mind bringing up that passage of Scripture to be cross-examined?

 

[archierieus]

Would you mind bringing up that passage of Scripture to be cross-examined?

No prob, will do this evening.

 

[bleitzel]

Would you mind bringing up that passage of Scripture to be cross-examined?

I know it's in 1 John 2:2

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

 

[archierieus]

Yes, thanks. I am running, just popped in. Great! Counsel may cross examine.

 

[PT Calvinist]

No prob, will do this evening.

Ok, though I won't be on this evening to give responses due to Church activity taking place.

I know it's in 1 John 2:2

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

Thank you for providing it. Though I'm not sure whether or not it is the precise one he was thinking of, so I'll wait.

 

[archierieus]

Paul makes a similar statement, I believe.

 

[PT Calvinist]

I know it's in 1 John 2:2

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

Hmmm....this verse. I believe that it means that, Christ, suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the Elect.

 

[bleitzel]

Hmmm....this verse. I believe that it means that, Christ, suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the Elect.

PT, no offense, but that is a rather thin argument based on this verse. Ther is nothing in this verse to suggest Christ's atonement was effective for some and ineffective for others.

If you look at some of the verses around it you'll see that John is even saying another anti-Calvinist idea, that the individual has the ability and the responsibiity to act in accordance with Christ's atonement:

1John1:6-7
"6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Notice: if we walk - the Son purifies us

1John1:9
"9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." Notice: if we confess - he will forgive us

1John2:3
"3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. " Notice: if we obey his commands - we have come to know him

1John2:4-6
"4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[a] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. " Notice at the end: the author says that whoever claims to live in Christ must (for it to be true) walk as Jesus did.

 

[Tzaousios]

If you look at some of the verses around it you'll see that John is even saying another anti-Calvinist idea, that the individual has the ability and the responsibiity to act in accordance with Christ's atonement:

But, if you look further into the grammar of the Greek of these passages, you will notice that the part of the sentence with the "if" and the verb of command, it is in the subjunctive mood. The commands are conditional statements and do not imply that unregenerate persons can fulfill them. If this was so, John would have described them carrying out the command and used the indicative mood. The same applies for direct commands in the imperative mood.

 

[archierieus]

But, if you look further into the grammar of the Greek of these passages, you will notice that the part of the sentence with the "if" and the verb of command, it is in the subjunctive mood. The commands are conditional statements and do not imply that unregenerate persons can fulfill them.

Please explain what you are referring to, that the statements do not imply that 'unregenerate persons can fulfill them.' Please do be so kind as to identify the 'verb of command' in the passages you are referring to, as well. Are you saying that the grammar teaches that 'unregenerate persons' cannot fulfill them?

If this was so, John would have described them carrying out the command and used the indicative mood. The same applies for direct commands in the imperative mood.

Not necessarily. Look at Jn. 3:16, 'whosoever (Gr. anyone who) believes in Him SHOULD NOT PERISH. If I frecall correctly, that too is in the subjunctive mood. Same writer.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ah ha! The lure of academic conquest has awakened you from your slumber. No doubt all the Greek listserves and peer review sites are waiting with bated breath to witness you shine.

Please explain what you are referring to, that the statements do not imply that 'unregenerate persons can fulfill them.'

Exactly how I explained it above. With my clairvoyant powers I am reading that you will tell me it is mere commentary and not exegesis. Therefore it is only an opinion that disagrees with archierieus' Opinion.

Please do be so kind as to identify the 'verb of command' in the passages you are referring to, as well.

The same ones which Bleitzel mentioned above.

Are you saying that the grammar teaches that 'unregenerate persons' cannot fulfill them?

Yes. With my clairvoyant powers I am reading that you will tell me it is mere commentary and not exegesis. Therefore it is only an opinion that disagrees with archierieus' Opinion.

Not necessarily. Look at Jn. 3:16, 'whosoever (Gr. anyone who) believes in Him SHOULD NOT PERISH. If I frecall correctly, that too is in the subjunctive mood. Same writer.

So what? It is conditional upon the one believing, who is also regenerate.

 

[archierieus]

So what? It is conditional upon the one believing, who is also regenerate.

Where does the verse say 'regenerate'?

 

[archierieus]

Exactly how I explained it above . . . The same ones which Bleitzel mentioned above.

Very well, here are the passages Bleitzel posted, and which you responded to:

1John1:6-7
"6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Notice: if we walk - the Son purifies us

1John1:9
"9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." Notice: if we confess - he will forgive us

1John2:3
"3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. " Notice: if we obey his commands - we have come to know him

1John2:4-6
"4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love[a] is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. " Notice at the end: the author says that whoever claims to live in Christ must (for it to be true) walk as Jesus did.

I notice the 'if' in each passage, but where are the verbs of command? Please identify or highlight them. Each passage begins with an 'if' statement, followed by describing what God will do 'if.' Where are the words of command? And please highlight the words you say show that a person cannot do what is described.

 

[Tzaousios]

Where does the verse say 'regenerate'?

I will resort to this tactic and answer a question with a question: where does the verse say unregenerate or natural man?

I notice the 'if' in each passage, but where are the verbs of command? Please identify or highlight them. Each passage begins with an 'if' statement, followed by describing what God will do 'if.' Where are the words of command? And please highlight the words you say show that a person cannot do what is described.

You know very well which ones they are. It does not take Liddell & Scott, Smythe's grammar, Greek/peer review list XYZ, or anything else to identify the verbs. Why should I bother highlighting them when it is predictable what you are going to say.

 

[bleitzel]

But, if you look further into the grammar of the Greek of these passages, you will notice that the part of the sentence with the "if" and the verb of command, it is in the subjunctive mood. The commands are conditional statements and do not imply that unregenerate persons can fulfill them. If this was so, John would have described them carrying out the command and used the indicative mood. The same applies for direct commands in the imperative mood.

While I'll freely admit I'm not a greek scholar, I don't think that I have to be to understand the meaning of these verses in 1John. But I'd like you to spell it out for me if you would be so kind. Just the presence of the if indicates that they are conditional statements but how exactly does the mood demonstrate John's intention?

While I wait for your reply I guess I'll do a little study on moods...

INDICATIVE MOOD
MOOD of CERTAINTY = simply states a thing as being a FACT. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
MOOD of PROBABILITY (possibility, potentiality) = expresses an action which may or should happen but which is not necessarily true at present. Suggests that the action is dependent upon some condition being met.
​

 

[archierieus]

I will resort to this tactic and answer a question with a question: where does the verse say unregenerate or natural man?

Then you acknowledge that it does not say or refer to 'regenerate' man. The fact is that it does not, so your previous statement that it DOES is incorrect, as the passage reads. In fact, the passage does not state either. Thus the importance of taking a verse exactly as it reads.

You know very well which ones they are.

Verbs of command in the quoted passages? I do not see any, looking at the English. I have not yet looked at the Greek, but certainly can cehck it out. You mentioned 'verbs of command,' thus the question as to what you were referring to. If you are not going to identify whatever it is you are referring to, then very well, I will look it up in Nestle-Aland.

 

[bleitzel]

So, if indicative denotes an actual event and subjunctive denotes a probable event, ...then... why do you think John would use the indicative if the unregenerate could partake in the activity? Actually, the mood has no bearing at all. I don't know the greek moods that John used here but if what you say is true and that they are subjunctive then John is saying that the individual does have the ability to do that which he is asserting. How does this help your case?