Posted on 04/08/2016 7:34:38 AM PDT by Salvation
The Gospel proclaimed on Wednesday of this week included the familiar John 3:16. So familiar is this verse, that many hold up signs or have bumper stickers that simply say, “John 3:16.”
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life (John 3:16).
It is indeed a beautiful verse, but I would argue that many use it inauthentically by pulling it out from its place within a longer passage. The fuller segment is John 3:16-21, which is as much a passage of warning as it is of consolation and assurance.
Here it is again, along with the remainder of that longer passage:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
And this is the verdict,
that the light came into the world,
but people preferred darkness to light,
because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
and does not come toward the light,
so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,
so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God (John 3:16-21).
This fuller context has somewhat of a different tone. It sets forth a great drama in which our lives are cast. It amounts to sober assessment of the obtuseness of many human hearts and of the urgent need for us to decide well in life.
Those who merely quote the first verse run the risk of presenting this text as a kind of a freewheeling assurance that all is well and that salvation is largely in the bag, that judgment and condemnation are not a significant factor since “God so loved the world.” And while the concept of faith is included in this first verse, without the larger context the tendency is to soft-pedal the need for repentance and for the obedience of faith. In so doing, the true drama and sober teaching of the fuller text are lost.
The longer passage fleshes the message out and has a balance that the shortened text does not. Here is what Jesus is in effect saying, expressed in more modern language:
As I live, I and my Father do not desire that any should die in their sins or be lost. I have not currently come as your judge but as your savior. I will come one day as the judge of all, but now is a time of grace and mercy extended to you.
But you need to know that you have a decision to make, a decision that will determine where you will spend eternity.
So please listen to me! Open the door to me and let me draw you to the obedience of faith and the beauty of holiness. If you do this, light will dawn for you, for I am the Light and your life will grow ever brighter.
But if you will not repent and come to a lifesaving obedience of faith, your heart will begin to despise me and the light of my glory. You will become accustomed to the darkness and begin to consider the Light (which I am) to be obnoxious, harsh, judgmental, and even cruel. Yes, you will begin to hate me, for I am the Light. You will prefer the darkness because you love your sins more.
Come to your senses and don’t let this happen. You have a decision to make: for the light or for the darkness, for me or for the prince of this world, Satan. Be sober and understand the dramatic choice before you. Your salvation depends on your choice to come to obedient faith in me or to reject me.
And know this: on the day of your judgment, the verdict will not be rendered by me so much as by you. For by then, you will either love the Light or hate it. And I will not force you to live in a light you detest. You will be free to go your own way. It will not be I who reject you. It will be you who reject me.
Be sober. Don’t let this happen. Don’t marginalize or ignore me. Don’t prefer the world and its twisted values and passing pleasures. Your sins will make you hate the light and prefer the darkness. You have a decision to make.
This message is much more complex than that contained in the popular, abbreviated text known as John 3:16. God’s mercy is offered, but the final verdict will center on whether or not we accept it. This message may be less consoling but it is true nonetheless, and only the truth can set us free.
There is a tendency by many to pull out certain verses and isolate them from their context and from the fuller message of the Gospel. The full and authentic Gospel echoes the opening call of the Lord Jesus: “Repent and believe the Good News.”
So yes, John 3:16! But please continue reading. The whole Gospel, please!
Nothing is good enough for Catholics, is it?
Not when you're being imprecise about the nature of the Divinity, repeatedly.
Well, then, since you don’t appear to think that saying that going to the Father through Jesus is the same thing as going to the Father through the Son, then perhaps it’s YOU who doesn’t think that Jesus is the Son.
I can’t believe that you think that saying going through the Son is more precise than going through Jesus.
At least Jesus is a specific name that tells us WHO we have to go to the Father through, as opposed to the generic term *son*.
I’m not being imprecise about the nature of Divinity.
Reading comprehension lessons are your friend.
It's sloppy thinking and writing that lead to heresy.
I state that one can not achieve eternal life without loving God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the first place because God wouldn't subject a person to His eternal presence if that person didn't want to be in it.
First of all, you can't get to The Father God without going through Jesus The Anointed One and having Him punch your ticket (Jn. 14:6).
Furthermore, Jesus and The Father are not particularly interested in your affection, your φιλέω (phileo) for them. What they are supremely interested in is your attitude of obedience, your ἀγαπάω (agapao), toward them. Agapao can be defined as "a sovereign preference of one above self and others." Without that obedient preference of total commitment to Jesus the Only Begotten of The Father, you cannot be saved, and your religiosity would only be a pretense (Jn. 3:16+).
The Catholic Church exists to enable people to fall in love with God in thought, word and deed. Her members do a pretty lousy job of it for the most part.
You might want to back up that statement about the Catholic religion by giving a quotable reference. Otherwise, it's just a throwaway line.
And as MM has indicated to you, no agency can "enable" humans to love God. Only He can do that, and only if they come to Him through confession of their depravity, of yearning for righteousness, and by demonstrating a saving faith in His Son, Jesus the Messiah and King.
If Catholicism doesn't instill total obedience to Christ through the Holy Scripture alone, then the Romanist doctrine is not worth the paper it is written on.
And I'll also bet that unless your love for your wife reaches the level of your preference for her above self and others, the attachment coming solely out of mutual affection will fail both of you. Ask any woman.
No, I'd fall into the "God and Jesus" heresy that is basically arianism.
What you are ignoring is that as an unregenerate sinner, submission to the manifestation of Jesus, Lord and Christ is the only way a human in this New Covenant can approach the Godhead and be heard. That is not Arianism.
Just because I don't use Catholic Approved Terminology does not mean I am being imprecise about anything. Matter of fact, the term *mother of God* is more imprecise than the term *mother of Jesus*.
But if you're going to go there, then by your reasoning and accusations, then the Holy Spirit was imprecise in the nature of Divinity.
*HE* is the one who assigned the title of *mother of Jesus* to Mary. The Catholic church for some reason sought to change that and (I'm guessing from what I've heard) improve on it.
What chutzpah!
Here, what the Holy Spirit deigns to call Mary.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
NOWHERE in Scripture is Mary ever referred to as the mother of God.
If I'm wrong, so is the Holy Spirit, John, and Luke.
Are you going to go and tell God that He did an inadequate job when He called Mary *mother of Jesus*????
Good luck with that.
***roll eyes*** is the ONLY response that that comment deserves.
Haven't you posted them about 9,000 times already? 😀😆😃
Arianism and Nestorianism in the same thread by the same poster. Shall we go for a trifecta?
This is getting ridiculous. All I can say is, praise Jesus I am an ex Catholic.
Next week, I am going to continue my home Bible study for some Catholic friends. And no, I don't intend to have a priest there, to help interpret, or to answer any questions. 😀😆😃
On the contrary,
John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Did you even read the part where the term *mother of Jesus* is what the HOLY SPIRIT used to identify Mary.
The term is about MARY, not Jesus.
If HE thought *mother of God* was the better term to use, then I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit would have used it.
Do you have something against agreeing with the Holy Spirit?
Would you rather agree with HIM or men?
Did I get it? Huh, did I get it?
Give the man a cigar.....
*in my best imitation of Howard Walowitz* Yeees!
I read it, I also knew what nestorianism was/is. Do you? Can you say "Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ Our Lord and God"? Because even the actual nestorians will do that now. You say that and I will happily say "Mary, Mother of Jesus". In fact, I'll say it even if you don't: Mary, mother of Jesus.
There's a reason nestorianism is a condemned heresy, as well as arianism. BOTH relied heavily on Scripture to promote their beliefs. Neither reflect the Faith of the Church.
Relying heavily on scripture is condemned by Catholicism.....
Relying on scripture does not reflect the faith of Catholicism.
What a damning indictment against Catholicism.
Then the faith of Catholicism is NOT the faith presented in Scripture. It is not saving faith in Christ for salvation.
Just when you think you've heard it all, someone always comes along to prove you wrong.
For your consideration.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Paul encouraged Timothy to rely on and continue in Scripture which make one wise to salvation.
He did NOT encourage Timothy to continue in church teaching or tradition.
He did not say either church teaching or tradition can make anyone wise for salvation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.