Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

John 3:16 Support for Limited Atonement

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 12
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 template Next
  • #46
    Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
    John 3:16 is not written from our standpoint; it is written from God's standpoint. The verse has God telling us that He sent his son so that His elect would not perish.

    The text says 'all who believe' -- meaning what separates those who are saved vs. those who are not saved is the 'believing' (an action taken by people).

    IOW, the Greek uses 'pas' and not 'elektos' - so we shouldn't be saying it says 'elect'.

    Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
    This discussion has nothing to do with the "world = elect" argument.
    Well, it seems relevant since you have stated that John 3:16 is specifically supports limited atonement from a Calvinist perspective...
    Last edited by phat8594; 02-17-2015, 03:46 PM.

    Comment

    • #47
      Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
      John 3:16 is not written from our standpoint; it is written from God's standpoint. The verse has God telling us that He sent his son so that His elect would not perish.
      That the "whosoever believes in Him" being interpreted as being the elect. Otherwise you are making merely a bald assertion without warrant. You cannot start with John 3:16 and with it by itself make your case. The word "elect" is not even in the verse. You have to build on truths which show that is the case. If you do not do that, you come across as just being high minded and just wrong.

      Build the case.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment

      • #48
        Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
        The discussion is not about us.
        No, it's about you, making up the rules for everybody else.

        It is about God. If God walks into a crowded room, He could pick out the elect.
        NO FOOLIN!

        It is God who sent His son so that His elect would not perish. He knows His elect and does not want them to perish.
        I believe I'll leave you to your legalistic all-knowed-up special revelation.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment

        • #49
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          No, it's about you, making up the rules for everybody else.
          NO FOOLIN!
          I believe I'll leave you to your legalistic all-knowed-up special revelation.
          So, not having an argument against John 3:16 telling us that God gave His son so that His elect would not perish, you are reduced to this!

          Comment

          • #50
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
            John 3:16 is not written from our standpoint; it is written from God's standpoint. The verse has God telling us that He sent his son so that His elect would not perish.
            That the "whosoever believes in Him" being interpreted as being the elect. Otherwise you are making merely a bald assertion without warrant. You cannot start with John 3:16 and with it by itself make your case. The word "elect" is not even in the verse. You have to build on truths which show that is the case. If you do not do that, you come across as just being high minded and just wrong.

            Build the case.
            Build the case! Those who believe in Christ are the elect. Those who do not believe in Christ are the non-elect. It's definitional. There is no case to build.

            Paul writes, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God," or "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect,..." or Jesus says, "...shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?," In each case, "elect" refers to believers.

            How do you define the term, "elect," if not referring to believers??

            Comment

            • #51
              Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
              The text says 'all who believe' -- meaning what separates those who are saved vs. those who are not saved is the 'believing' (an action taken by people).

              IOW, the Greek uses 'pas' and not 'elektos' - so we shouldn't be saying it says 'elect'."
              IOW, "those who are saved (i.e., the elect) vs. those who are not saved (the non-elect)." Believing separates the elect from the non-elect. John 3:16 is very specific, "God sent his son so that whosoever believes (i.e., the elect, or identified as elect by the act of believing) will not perish." It ignores those who do not believe leading to the conclusion that those who do not believe (i.e., the non-elect) will perish. Is that not the way it is?

              Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
              Well, it seems relevant since you have stated that John 3:16 is specifically supports limited atonement from a Calvinist perspective...
              I make no claim that "world" must refer only to the elect. That is an entirely different argument. I merely emphasize the rest of the verse which tells us exactly why God sent His son - (i.e., so that His elect (whosoever believes) will not perish).

              Comment

              • #52
                Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                IOW, "those who are saved (i.e., the elect) vs. those who are not saved (the non-elect)." Believing separates the elect from the non-elect. John 3:16 is very specific, "God sent his son so that whosoever believes (i.e., the elect, or identified as elect by the act of believing) will not perish." It ignores those who do not believe leading to the conclusion that those who do not believe (i.e., the non-elect) will perish. Is that not the way it is?
                You are getting it backwards. The purpose of the text is clearly not to describe who 'the elect are' (that word isn't even used here).

                The verse is clearly saying that all who believe are saved -- not all who are saved are identified by their believing. IOW, you are reversing the verse. You are putting the salvation before the believing -- something John 3 clearly does not do.

                Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                I make no claim that "world" must refer only to the elect. That is an entirely different argument. I merely emphasize the rest of the verse which tells us exactly why God sent His son - (i.e., so that His elect (whosoever believes) will not perish).
                And yet, wouldn't it have to for your reading to even come close to working?


                John 3:17
                For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

                Comment

                • #53
                  Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                  So, not having an argument against John 3:16 telling us that God gave His son so that His elect would not perish, you are reduced to this!
                  I'm simply not suckered into your brand of superhypercalvinism, or whatever you want to call it --- I don't believe in cramming God into our own little religious boxes.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    Originally posted by rhutchin View Post
                    So, not having an argument against John 3:16 telling us that God gave His son so that His elect would not perish, you are reduced to this!
                    And, as it has already been pointed out - the "elect" aren't mentioned there at all -- YOU have to introduce the term, and then YOU decide what it means.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      I'm simply not suckered into your brand of superhypercalvinism, or whatever you want to call it --- I don't believe in cramming God into our own little religious boxes.
                      If we had the same "free will" as fictional characters, then no one would really be responsible for their actions, right?
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        If we had the same "free will" as fictional characters, then no one would really be responsible for their actions, right?
                        Mick is a fictional character - does HE have free will?
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          If we had the same "free will" as fictional characters, then no one would really be responsible for their actions, right?
                          Yep. And that was the understanding and argumentation of the Early Church Fathers against gnostic heresies which held to fatalism.

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            If we had the same "free will" as fictional characters, then no one would really be responsible for their actions, right?
                            OOOOPS!!!! I thought this was in the MICKIEL thread! MY bad!
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              OOOOPS!!!! I thought this was in the MICKIEL thread! MY bad!
                              Eh. Mick's universalism is a hypercalvinism with the entirety of the human race as the elect. So, we have some stuff in common there.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                And, as it has already been pointed out - the "elect" aren't mentioned there at all -- YOU have to introduce the term, and then YOU decide what it means.
                                I define believers in Christ as the elect. That seems to be pretty standard. Thus, in John 3:16, "whosoever believes," would be the elect, by definition.

                                What is your definition of "the elect"?

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 template Next
                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X