The Key to 3:16

[Andrew]

https://youtu.be/SyXQSUT4_hI

Thoughts?

 

[Josiah]

He's confusing two different things. John 3:16 speaks of being "born again," "justification - narrow," "initial grace." Later, Jesus turns to what those now in this new relationship, those with life and the Holy Spirit and justification are to do. The Brother is simply mixing things and working BACKWARDS. He is noting that one who is disobedient can "wreck" their relationship and not be saved (a position held by all Christians except for a tiny minority of radical Calvinists),but it is wrong to say that the CHRISTIAN obeying is what causes him to become born again, to become a child of God, to be given spiritual life and the Holy Spirit. He is confusing things and working BACKWARDS. Furthermore, he is confusing Law and Gospel. John 3:16 is gospel, John 3:36 is Law. BOTH are true, the Law doesn't cancel out the Gospel as he tries to do.


He is right in condemning OSAS But then 99.99% of Christians do, as well. His argument is more with a tiny, tiny number of radical Calvinists, not Protestants in general. This is a common problem in Catholic apologetics: often there is the assumption that if one who calls himself "Protestant" says something, ergo ALL Protestants do and it's a dogma of Protestantism. Lazy. Wrong. Deceptive.


He is wrong in his perfectionism. NO ONE totally obeys, NO ONE does what the Brother argues all MUST to in order to be born again. I hold that BECAUSE we are in a new relationship with God, BECAUSE we are born again, BECAUSE we are now in a state of grace/mercy, there is forgiveness. However, this does not cancel out the command: Law and Gospel BOTH hold. The way the Brother spins this, if we are not 100% perfect in fulfilling every will of God, then we are not saved (which means St. Paul is in hell).


Keep in mind, Protestantism and Catholicism largely agree in what is true for one who is born again (Luther and the RCC of his day stressed this agreement). It's how/why one BECOMES born again that we disagree; it's John 3:16 we disagree on, not John 3:36.





For John 3:16 and the issue of BEING born again, GAINING faith and justication and the Holy Spirit, see https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6902-Is-Jesus-The-Savior THIS is where Catholicism and most Protestants disagree. Read the post. Consider it. THIS is the controversy.

NOW, we could turn to the issue of John 3:36, what the believer, the child of God, the one with the GIFT of life, the one with the Holy Spirit is called by the Law to do (and not do). We seldom discuss that, however, because it's not controversal, it's not been controversal in 2000 years, everyone agrees we are to be perfect, holy, Christ-like, obediant; we are to love all as Christ first loved us, we are to serve one another as Christ first served us, we are to teach and baptize. Yup. Everyone says that. Everyone agrees on that. 99.99% of Christians argue that lacking that CAN "wreck" our faith and thus our salvation (the Lutheran Bonhoffer wrote much on this) and Luther and the RCC fully agreed on this, we all disagree with a tiny, tiny number of radical Calvinists who argue John 3:36 doesn't apply to salvation and that "once saved, ALWAYS saved" (note, no mention of faith).




A blessed Easter season to all.



- Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

He's confusing two different things. John 3:16 speaks of being "born again," "justification - narrow," "initial grace." Later, Jesus turns to what those now in this new relationship, those with life and the Holy Spirit and justification are to do. The Brother is simply mixing things and working BACKWARDS. He is noting that one who is disobedient can "wreck" their relationship and not be saved (a position held by all Christians except for a tiny minority of radical Calvinists),but it is wrong to say that the CHRISTIAN obeying is what causes him to become born again, to become a child of God, to be given spiritual life and the Holy Spirit. He is confusing things and working BACKWARDS. Furthermore, he is confusing Law and Gospel. John 3:16 is gospel, John 3:36 is Law. BOTH are true, the Law doesn't cancel out the Gospel as he tries to do.


He is right in condemning OSAS But then 99.99% of Christians do, as well. His argument is more with a tiny, tiny number of radical Calvinists, not Protestants in general. This is a common problem in Catholic apologetics: often there is the assumption that if one who calls himself "Protestant" says something, ergo ALL Protestants do and it's a dogma of Protestantism. Lazy. Wrong. Deceptive.


He is wrong in his perfectionism. NO ONE totally obeys, NO ONE does what the Brother argues all MUST to in order to be born again. I hold that BECAUSE we are in a new relationship with God, BECAUSE we are born again, BECAUSE we are now in a state of grace/mercy, there is forgiveness. However, this does not cancel out the command: Law and Gospel BOTH hold. The way the Brother spins this, if we are not 100% perfect in fulfilling every will of God, then we are not saved (which means St. Paul is in hell).


Keep in mind, Protestantism and Catholicism largely agree in what is true for one who is born again (Luther and the RCC of his day stressed this agreement). It's how/why one BECOMES born again that we disagree; it's John 3:16 we disagree on, not John 3:36.





For John 3:16 and the issue of BEING born again, GAINING faith and justication and the Holy Spirit, see https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6902-Is-Jesus-The-Savior THIS is where Catholicism and most Protestants disagree. Read the post. Consider it. THIS is the controversy.

NOW, we could turn to the issue of John 3:36, what the believer, the child of God, the one with the GIFT of life, the one with the Holy Spirit is called by the Law to do (and not do). We seldom discuss that, however, because it's not controversal, it's not been controversal in 2000 years, everyone agrees we are to be perfect, holy, Christ-like, obediant; we are to love all as Christ first loved us, we are to serve one another as Christ first served us, we are to teach and baptize. Yup. Everyone says that. Everyone agrees on that. 99.99% of Christians argue that lacking that CAN "wreck" our faith and thus our salvation (the Lutheran Bonhoffer wrote much on this) and Luther and the RCC fully agreed on this, we all disagree with a tiny, tiny number of radical Calvinists who argue John 3:36 doesn't apply to salvation and that "once saved, ALWAYS saved" (note, no mention of faith).




A blessed Easter season to all.



- Josiah




.

Yeah it bugged me when he said Faith is not enough, Faith is everything! He means means Faith without works is dead he doesn't realized that dead faith is not Faith! Which is entirely the point.
His concerns seem to be Joel and the Mega churches who is a spiritual motivator for sure but he takes things out of context.
There are many other short videos about john 3:16 and they ALL have very different interpretations, is it really that hard to understand?

 

[MennoSota]

He's confusing two different things. John 3:16 speaks of being "born again," "justification - narrow," "initial grace." Later, Jesus turns to what those now in this new relationship, those with life and the Holy Spirit and justification are to do. The Brother is simply mixing things and working BACKWARDS. He is noting that one who is disobedient can "wreck" their relationship and not be saved (a position held by all Christians except for a tiny minority of radical Calvinists),but it is wrong to say that the CHRISTIAN obeying is what causes him to become born again, to become a child of God, to be given spiritual life and the Holy Spirit. He is confusing things and working BACKWARDS. Furthermore, he is confusing Law and Gospel. John 3:16 is gospel, John 3:36 is Law. BOTH are true, the Law doesn't cancel out the Gospel as he tries to do.


He is right in condemning OSAS But then 99.99% of Christians do, as well. His argument is more with a tiny, tiny number of radical Calvinists, not Protestants in general. This is a common problem in Catholic apologetics: often there is the assumption that if one who calls himself "Protestant" says something, ergo ALL Protestants do and it's a dogma of Protestantism. Lazy. Wrong. Deceptive.


He is wrong in his perfectionism. NO ONE totally obeys, NO ONE does what the Brother argues all MUST to in order to be born again. I hold that BECAUSE we are in a new relationship with God, BECAUSE we are born again, BECAUSE we are now in a state of grace/mercy, there is forgiveness. However, this does not cancel out the command: Law and Gospel BOTH hold. The way the Brother spins this, if we are not 100% perfect in fulfilling every will of God, then we are not saved (which means St. Paul is in hell).


Keep in mind, Protestantism and Catholicism largely agree in what is true for one who is born again (Luther and the RCC of his day stressed this agreement). It's how/why one BECOMES born again that we disagree; it's John 3:16 we disagree on, not John 3:36.





For John 3:16 and the issue of BEING born again, GAINING faith and justication and the Holy Spirit, see https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6902-Is-Jesus-The-Savior THIS is where Catholicism and most Protestants disagree. Read the post. Consider it. THIS is the controversy.

NOW, we could turn to the issue of John 3:36, what the believer, the child of God, the one with the GIFT of life, the one with the Holy Spirit is called by the Law to do (and not do). We seldom discuss that, however, because it's not controversal, it's not been controversal in 2000 years, everyone agrees we are to be perfect, holy, Christ-like, obediant; we are to love all as Christ first loved us, we are to serve one another as Christ first served us, we are to teach and baptize. Yup. Everyone says that. Everyone agrees on that. 99.99% of Christians argue that lacking that CAN "wreck" our faith and thus our salvation (the Lutheran Bonhoffer wrote much on this) and Luther and the RCC fully agreed on this, we all disagree with a tiny, tiny number of radical Calvinists who argue John 3:36 doesn't apply to salvation and that "once saved, ALWAYS saved" (note, no mention of faith).




A blessed Easter season to all.



- Josiah




.

I find it funny how you have created justification "narrow" and justification "wide" in your narrative. Pretty sure that's your own unique creation.

 

[atpollard]

I find it funny how you have created justification "narrow" and justification "wide" in your narrative. Pretty sure that's your own unique creation.

Why not, he creates his own definition of Calvinism and is an expert on what other people believe in spite of how many Calvinists tell him that he is mistaken about what Reformed Theology teaches.

In this case, however, I suspect that our confused Lutheran brother is just attempting to differentiate the initial act of transformation by God (what he calls Justification ‘narrow’ and Calvinists would call “Justification”) from the ongoing process of becoming Christ-like (what he calls Justification ‘wide’ and Calvinists would call “Sanctification”).

 

[Josiah]

in spite of how many Calvinists tell him that he is mistaken about what Reformed Theology teaches.

I QUOTED VERBATIM the exact black-and-white words of the Westminster Confession.

You ignored them.

You just went on to argue that the words are wrong and something radically different is MEANT by the words, something the words actually make impossible.

Now, as I posted, you COULD simply say (as Catholics often do, for example), "That's poorly worded and misleading, what is actually taught is...." But you didn't. Nor did the two men in the video that was shared. You COULD simply say, "That was/is the teaching 300 years ago, but it is not what I believe and not what most Calvinists believe, what is now taught is....." But you didn't. Nor did the two men in the video that was shared. Instead, what we have is the literal, verbatim, black-and-white, objective, undeniable words in the official Westminster Confession ... and you saying something radically different, something impossible given the words in the Confession.

In this case, however, I suspect that our confused Lutheran brother is just attempting to differentiate the initial act of transformation by God (what he calls Justification ‘narrow’ and Calvinists would call “Justification”) from the ongoing process of becoming Christ-like (what he calls Justification ‘wide’ and Calvinists would call “Sanctification”).

Close, lol....


As I've shared many times, words such as "salvation" "justification" "sanctification" "soteriology" "regeneration" and more can be used in Scripture and in theology variously. Aresenios and MoreCoffee have both often shared that the lack of defining exactly what we mean by these terms leads to much miscommunication and misunderstanding. And I agree. In the Reformation, both Catholics and Lutherans were very aware of this and went to great lengths to define terms, to use terms in precise ways that the other understood. And in theological discourse, this is still the case among effective and wise parties.

You might be aware that a key issue in the Reformation (and in Protestantism) is a distinction between the COMING of faith, life, the Holy Spirit, and then the resulting BECOMING more Christ-like. This distinction was critical in the Reformation, for both Luther and Calvin, because our difference with Catholicism is not with the later (at least not significantly), the "debate" (if you will) was over the first part. Lutherans and Calvinists being monergists and very concerned with NOT being Pelagian in any way, Catholics rebuffing that, trying to defend the theology of the indulgence sellers (the theology in their preaching is the genesis of the Lutheran Reformation; Luther correctly noting it was clearly Pelagian). "Narrow" Justification as distinct from "narrow" Sanctification is one way Protestant theologians make this distinction clear. I understand that since Vatican II, an increasing number of Catholic theologians are making the same distinction, speaking of INITIAL grace to mean (sorta) what Lutherans and Calvinists mean by "narrow Justification." In some circles, "born again" is used for this initial change in the God/man relationship but it too is often used in a variety of ways and so often also inprecise and misleading.

If you choose, you can just use terms like "Salvation" "justification" "sanctification" "born again" "Sanctification" "Discipleship" etc. all undefined, interchangably and imprecisely. But I suspect you will only add to the confusion and misunderstanding. And of course you will get NOWHERE in your discussions with synergists and semi-Pelagians because they will simply define the words differerntly than you, as a monergist, mean them.




MennoSota,

That you mock what I posted in #2 doesn't surprise me..... and you choose to rebuke me for my faith in post #2 is not unexpected.




A blessed Easter Season to all....


Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

I QUOTED VERBATIM the exact black-and-white words of the Westminster Confession.

You ignored them.

You just went on to argue that the words are wrong and something radically different is MEANT by the words, something the words actually make impossible.

Now, as I posted, you COULD simply say (as Catholics often do, for example), "That's poorly worded and misleading, what is actually taught is...." But you didn't. Nor did the two men in the video that was shared. You COULD simply say, "That was/is the teaching 300 years ago, but it is not what I believe and not what most Calvinists believe, what is now taught is....." But you didn't. Nor did the two men in the video that was shared. Instead, what we have is the literal, verbatim, black-and-white, objective, undeniable words in the official Westminster Confession ... and you saying something radically different, something impossible given the words in the Confession.







Close, lol....


As I've shared many times, words such as "salvation" "justification" "sanctification" "soteriology" "regeneration" and more can be used in Scripture and in theology variously. Aresenios and MoreCoffee have both often shared that the lack of defining exactly what we mean by these terms leads to much miscommunication and misunderstanding. And I agree. In the Reformation, both Catholics and Lutherans were very aware of this and went to great lengths to define terms, to use terms in precise ways that the other understood. And in theological discourse, this is still the case among effective and wise parties.

You might be aware that a key issue in the Reformation (and in Protestantism) is a distinction between the COMING of faith, life, the Holy Spirit, and then the resulting BECOMING more Christ-like. This distinction was critical in the Reformation, for both Luther and Calvin, because our difference with Catholicism is not with the later (at least not significantly), the "debate" (if you will) was over the first part. Lutherans and Calvinists being monergists and very concerned with NOT being Pelagian in any way, Catholics rebuffing that, trying to defend the theology of the indulgence sellers (the theology in their preaching is the genesis of the Lutheran Reformation; Luther correctly noting it was clearly Pelagian). "Narrow" Justification as distinct from "narrow" Sanctification is one way Protestant theologians make this distinction clear. I understand that since Vatican II, an increasing number of Catholic theologians are making the same distinction, speaking of INITIAL grace to mean (sorta) what Lutherans and Calvinists mean by "narrow Justification." In some circles, "born again" is used for this initial change in the God/man relationship but it too is often used in a variety of ways and so often also inprecise and misleading.

If you choose, you can just use terms like "Salvation" "justification" "sanctification" "born again" "Sanctification" "Discipleship" etc. all undefined, interchangably and imprecisely. But I suspect you will only add to the confusion and misunderstanding. And of course you will get NOWHERE in your discussions with synergists and semi-Pelagians because they will simply define the words differerntly than you, as a monergist, mean them.




MennoSota,

That you mock what I posted in #2 doesn't surprise me..... and you choose to rebuke me for my faith in post #2 is not unexpected.




A blessed Easter Season to all....


Josiah



.

I argued nothing. I presented the whole chapter from the WCF Short Catechism on that topic to address your mining of one sentence out of a paragraph that is part of a chapter so that you can build a straw man theology and call it “Calvinism”.

Even MoreCoffee (who no one can accuse of being a Calvinist) presented the sentence you quoted in its context and the context refuted your ‘Calvinism’ straw man.

The closest thing to an original thought that I presented in response to your nonsense is the statement that PREDESTINED is not the same thing as FOREORDAINED and they used two different words for a reason.

What is there to discuss? You just need to read the whole chapter in the WCF instead of just one sentence. It is not US who are changing the meaning of what it teaches.