What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

Believing something and being able to conclusively show it may not be the same thing.

There are some arguments.

 

[Der Alte]

There are some arguments.

The unsupported arguments/opinions of "scholars" are no more compelling that the scribbling on a public facility wall.

 

[zoidar]

The unsupported arguments/opinions of "scholars" are no more compelling that the scribbling on a public facility wall.

In two passages in this Gospel, both in this chapter (3:15–21 and 3:31–36), the words of a speaker (Jesus and John the Baptist respectively) are succeeded by the explanatory reflections of the Evangelist. Because the ancient texts did not use quotation marks or other orthographical equivalents, the exact point of transition is disputed. In the first incident, Nicholson (p. 89) thinks the dialogue ends at v. 10, with all of vv. 11–21 being the comment of the Evangelist. This is unlikely: the title ‘Son of Man’ is so characteristically reserved for Jesus’ lips as a form of self-identification that it is unthinkable that he ended before v. 15. The same problem attends the view of Beasley-Murray (p. 46), and others before him, that makes 3:12–21 structurally parallel to 3:31–36. Some argue that Jesus’ monologue extends to the end of v. 21. But vv. 16–21 read more plausibly as the Evangelist’s meditation. For instance, the expression ‘one and only’ (monogenēs) is a word used by the Evangelist (1:14, 18; cf. 1 Jn. 4:9), and is not elsewhere placed on the lips of Jesus or of anyone else in this Gospel. Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15

D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 203–204.

John 3:16-21 — Are they the Words of Christ, or the Words of John?

 

[Der Alte]

...

In two passages in this Gospel, both in this chapter (3:15–21 and 3:31–36), the words of a speaker (Jesus and John the Baptist respectively) are succeeded by the explanatory reflections of the Evangelist. Because the ancient texts did not use quotation marks or other orthographical equivalents, the exact point of transition is disputed. In the first incident, Nicholson (p. 89) thinks the dialogue ends at v. 10, with all of vv. 11–21 being the comment of the Evangelist. This is unlikely: the title ‘Son of Man’ is so characteristically reserved for Jesus’ lips as a form of self-identification that it is unthinkable that he ended before v. 15. The same problem attends the view of Beasley-Murray (p. 46), and others before him, that makes 3:12–21 structurally parallel to 3:31–36. Some argue that Jesus’ monologue extends to the end of v. 21. But vv. 16–21 read more plausibly as the Evangelist’s meditation. For instance, the expression ‘one and only’ (monogenēs) is a word used by the Evangelist (1:14, 18; cf. 1 Jn. 4:9), and is not elsewhere placed on the lips of Jesus or of anyone else in this Gospel. Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 203–204.
John 3:16-21 — Are they the Words of Christ, or the Words of John?​

This is not unsupported opinion. Here Carson has made credible arguments based on previous usages by Jesus and John

 

[QvQ]

removed by QvQ

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

removed by QvQ

Was it good lol .

 

[QvQ]

Was it good lol .

Mother said I have a wicked tongue so...maybe..depending
However, I skirt cautious around God, being ever respectful both of Him and the Brethren in Christ so a bit over the edge is a touch too far.
Best removed

 

[Guojing]

Hey, don't stop there make the entire book of John commentary and throw it out.

No one is throwing anything out.

 

[Guojing]

It is a quote of Jesus Christ.

Not John's commentary.

Go back to John 3. Read.


God bless.

John 2

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

While John 3:19 is a quote of Jesus, would you regard John 2:22 as a "quote of Jesus Christ" as well?

Thus, likewise, I am saying John 3:16 was a commentary added by the author, and not the words of Jesus himself.

Why do you say Jesus actually said the words in John 3:16 in the first place? I am curious, is it because you have been taught that?

 

[Guojing]

Do you believe the gospel is for all mankind to be received and believed or just for the elect ?

In other words does God just love the elect or all the world including the non elect ?

I am merely saying to conclude that John 3:16 are not the words of Jesus himself, but a commentary added by the author of John. It is Holy Spirit inspired no doubt.

 

[QvQ]

Every word in the Bible is the Word of God. If some verses of John are commentary then the Epistles of Paul are commentary. Does that in any way diminish those words?
It doesn't make the words one whit less true or less than the Word of God.

 

[Guojing]

Every word in the Bible is the Word of God. If some verses of John are commentary then the Epistles of Paul are commentary. Does that in any way diminish those words?
It doesn't make the words one whit less true or less than the Word of God.

That is correct.

But my point to you was, when you interpret John 3:16 as meaning

John 3:16 does not say anything else is required.

That is your own personal commentary

 

[P1LGR1M]

If I believe that God promises something doesn't make it certain I will go through with such a hard test as sacrificing my son. Just saying believing a fact is one thing, acting on that fact is another thing.

I would agree. I do not view Abraham's "testing" to be for God's benefit, but for Abraham's. God already knew what Abraham would do, but Abraham, in my opinion, proved to himself to what extent he believed.

Probably what made it hardest for Abraham was the agony of wondering if he had understood God's promise properly. That can be agony for us as well, sometimes.

God bless.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

If I believe that God promises something doesn't make it certain I will go through with such a hard test as sacrificing my son. Just saying believing a fact is one thing, acting on that fact is another thing.

Many things in scripture are unique and do not have universal applications for everyone. This is one such example . Many things are 1 time events never to be repeated .

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I don't care for Tulips, I prefer roses. John 3:16 is one of a pair of adjacent vss. which conclusively show that the Greek word "Aionios" means "eternal, for ever, everlasting" etc.

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

Jesus has paralleled "shall not perish" with "aionios life,' twice. "Aionios" by definition means "eternal."
How do I explain the instances where "aionios" refers to something that is not eternal? E.g. "world," Rom 16:25, it is used figuratively. There were actual foxes at the time of Jesus but Herod was not actually a fox when Jesus called him one. A figure of speech. There were actual stones at the time of Jesus but Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "Petros." A figure of speech. There was actual thunder at the time of Jesus but James and John were not literally sons of thunder when Jesus named them that. A figure of speech.

Yes I really liked tulips for over 40 years but now they are the least favorite of all the flowers

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I would agree. I do not view Abraham's "testing" to be for God's benefit, but for Abraham's. God already knew what Abraham would do, but Abraham, in my opinion, proved to himself to what extent he believed.

Probably what made it hardest for Abraham was the agony of wondering if he had understood God's promise properly. That can be agony for us as well, sometimes.

God bless.

ditto

 

[P1LGR1M]

Actually many scholars believe it's a comment of John (John 3:16-21 I believe).

Some argue that Jesus’ monologue extends to the end of v. 21. But vv. 16–21 read more plausibly as the Evangelist’s meditation. For instance, the expression ‘one and only’ (monogenēs) is a word used by the Evangelist (1:14, 18; cf. 1 Jn. 4:9), and is not elsewhere placed on the lips of Jesus or of anyone else in this Gospel. Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15

I would admit that the use of the word monogenēs might indicate commentary, but the Lord's use of theos is central to the teaching itself:


John 3:3
King James Version

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


So I would disagree with the argument that because he "does not normally refer to God as God" that this would indicate commentary on John's part.

Why do you say Jesus actually said the words in John 3:16 in the first place? I am curious, is it because you have been taught that?

To be honest, it's not really something I have given much thought to.

More of an assumption on my part based on the text itself.

But it seems to be the Lord's manner to add those "for" statements, or to add to a truth He has given:


John 5
King James Version

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:


We see a truth given, then the commentary of Christ.


25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;


John 6

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.


33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.


I view this...


John 3:14-18
King James Version

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


...to be Jesus' teaching, rather than John's commentary, and that it was spoken by Christ within the teaching as Christ addresses Nicodemus.

I can see, though, how one could view it as commentary, and apologize for the curt response.


God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

* * * Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 203–204.
John 3:16-21 — Are they the Words of Christ, or the Words of John?

Carson has made an error here. "Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15" I found several verses where Jesus refers to God as "ho Theos." This makes everything Carson said suspect. "Ho" is the definite article, in Greek equivalent to our word "the." Depending on how it is used it is written "ho,""tou" and "ton." All mean the same thing "the." Students learn this in basic Greek 101. A credible scholar should never make this kind of error.
Mat 4:7 τὸν Θεόν
Mat 4:10 τὸν Θεόν
Mat 5:8 τὸν Θεὸν
Mat 5:34 τοῦ Θεοῦ·
Mat 6:30 ὁ Θεὸς
Mat 6:33 τοῦ Θεοῦ
Mat 8:29 τοῦ Θεοῦ;
Mat 12:4 τοῦ Θεοῦ
Mat 15:3 τοῦ Θεοῦ
Mat 15:4 ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς
Mat 19:6 ὁ Θεὸς
Mat 15:6 τοῦ Θεοῦ

 

[zoidar]

Carson has made an error here. "Nor does Jesus normally refer to God as ho theos (‘God’).15" I found several verses where Jesus refers to God as "ho Theos." This makes everything Carson said suspect. "Ho" is the definite article, in Greek equivalent to our word "the." Depending on how it is used it is written "ho,""tou" and "ton." All mean the same thing "the." Students learn this in basic Greek 101. A credible scholar should never make this kind of error.
Mat 4:7 τὸν Θεόν
Mat 4:10 τὸν Θεόν
Mat 5:8 τὸν Θεὸν
Mat 5:34 τοῦ Θεοῦ·
Mat 6:30 ὁ Θεὸς
Mat 6:33 τοῦ Θεοῦ
Mat 8:29 τοῦ Θεοῦ;
Mat 12:4 τοῦ Θεοῦ
Mat 15:3 τοῦ Θεοῦ
Mat 15:4 ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς
Mat 19:6 ὁ Θεὸς
Mat 15:6 τοῦ Θεοῦ

Sounds strange! I didn't check this myself ...

Could he really make such a rookie error?

 

[Der Alte]

Sounds strange! I didn't check this myself ...
Could he really make such a rookie error?

Maybe not an error maybe pushing his agenda. Kinda like that guy who got on national TV and called most of America facsists. There ain't no such thing as a semi-Fascist.