study of John 3:14-20, Part V. C v A

Now let us examine the third option. God's view of giving a chance. This is most notably done by examining the condition of those who are disobedient. Which is everyone, but more particularly those who have heard the Gospel.

God writes through the pen of John "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." This confirms our condition of disobedience. It adds on to this condition by saying that people LOVE darkness. It continues "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light lest his deeds should be exposed." This says that they love darkness because they are wicked for fear that they should be exposed as such.

It is a fear proper to encountering holiness. Was it not this fear that cause men to crucify Christ? It is a fear of being undone as in being discoved as scum. Look at Isaiah before the throne of God in Isaiah 6. He was exposed by an unapproachable light that eminates before the throne of God. He collapsed and plead for help. The imagery of light has always been Christ in the Gospel of John. God is the very source of that which exposes lies and burns the truth into us. The dark creatures of John 3 are not the ones who hold onto the light themselves. They hate it. Grace and light from God are needed. They come to the light if they do what is true. (verse 21) Yet, a wicked person cannot or rather will not because their sin and wicked deeds are too blinding and painful in such a radiant light. Isaiah merely had a bad mouth that needed to be atoned for in God's presence. Atonement is needed for there to be a change. Not all have faith. Faith is also a gift.

Think of your state when such a bright light of perfection and truth be shone forth. You would be irresistably be undone. To resist the light would be like trying to live as an ant under a magnifying glass. You would not wish to be at home in the light. Our choice isn't sufficent because our rational and natural choice is to skulk back to the shadows. It is not by faith and humilty ask for help from one's persecutor. Do you hold out that man has an island of goodness that would vouche for itself and embrace such aid? Our corruption is too great.

Let us look at the absurdity. Would you cast yourself into the desert without any food that benefits you? Would you not rather return to the verdant lands of abundance. Don't kid yourself, you would have gone back to Egypt. It is a fool who would not choose such. This attraction toward the light and what the world sees as foolish comes from a drastic change. It is not just a change of heart, nothing motivates it but foolishness. People would easily return the way they came. It is not as if we are merely chamelions that can change our skin by our choice. We cannot change our spots. It is God who changes us that is the only door to heaven. He changes us towards his own end. Salvation and his enjoyment. Would a moth not irresistibly fly into the flames of God? Something that appears to be foolish to others but quite natural for the moth. It is as foolish as spending forty years in a desert. Yet, our God does not burn those who come to him earnestly. All who put their hope in him shall not be disappointed. Now let us drop the pretense.

Let us look at the christian life without this change. The rain falls on both the righteous and unrighteous. The unrighteous are feed the same spiritual food as the righteous. (1 corinthians 10.) It seems to imply something eucharistic and salvational. Yet, clearly it does not benefit all. The unrighteous were still... Unrighteous. The food does not benefit them or save those who fall in the wilderness. Now having discussed this, what is the difference between the righteous and unrighteous here. One has real faith, one only has a resemblence to it. Now since everyone originally is unrighteous. One cannot partake of the lord's cup and that of demons. A real change must occur. This change is not merely a choice. It issomething much deeper. It is a literal change of heart not a figurative one with no more power than a fickle choice. We cannot be what we are not. Unless God changes us. We cannot by nature be warmed by God's rays if we are frozen under wrath. We cannot by nature lay claim of Christ's blood if we cannot lay claim to anything that is truly good. We shall see ourselves as counterfeit for that is what we would be if it was by choice alone without grace. Those who truly come to him, he shall in no ways cast out.

Looking back we encounter the same problem for unconversion. How can someone can reject the Gospel when they fully know the riches of grace that lie within? This is perhaps more appropriate to ask someone who thinks they are a chamelion. How do men resist the gospel? Is the gospel not the very thing that gives warmth. Has it not been the most wonderful blessing in one's life? Why would a rational person choose the cold if they knew of warmth? It is beyond me. It is rather because the warmth did not benefit them. Only God can change a believer back, but I see not why. Nor do I see how the cold darkness can creep back into designs of the warming light. The light is victorious. Absolutely.

Now it remains to be seen how ones deeds are exposed. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God." ESV. Another translation "his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." NASB. It is the nature of the person. It is not a chance in man but a chance in God. Wrought means profusely hammered and worked. Their deads have been hammered and worked in God. This is the chapter on the necessity to be born again. You cannot escape the conclusion. It is thus only possible for His great work to actually save, to actually make people come to the light. Giving a chance does not cause a work to be wrought by God.

This is consistent with Ephesians 2 that says we are His workmanship. It is also consistent with Paul again who says "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13,14 RSV. Some have become fancy by saying that God respects choice and changes us accordingly. The problem with this is that God is in our will. He is at work in our hearts. Scripture says of God. '"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or runs but on God who has mercy.'Romans 9:15-16

It does not say that the people chose to be rebellous so He didn't have mercy on them. It does not say they chose to be rebelous and God was not compassionate. There is an impossiblity with choice. It does not depend on man's will. It is true that God still outstretched his hands when the people were otherwise. He continued to do so for generations. He delievered every promise that he gave them. This does not mean the promises of the law. The law did not intend to save. This means the promises of giving the people a king, the prophets, the priests, a promised land, not forsaking them in trouble, helping them in war, and the blessing of the savior of the world coming their lineage were true. These were the promises of Abraham. As for the New Covenant, enacted by a better sacrifice and better promises. The change in heart and writing His laws upon it is promised in Jeremiah. These promises were unconditional. Likewise, salvation. Some have become fancy in saying that God respects choice and changes people afterward. If choice matters, it cannot be said that God didn't cause the choice. It rather -must- be said that he brought it forth for it does not depend on choice for God to be merciful or compassionate.

Study of John 3:16, Part IV

Now, we should drive clear of confessing pure universalism and/or say that God only saved creation rather than the particular people called Christians. Lets look the design of God's love or the correct object of that love. It may be seen from the previous verses in John and their OT equivalents that the serpent was raised toward Israel, not Egypt. Lets define Israel in this parallel as all those who have heard the gospel. This is fitting because no one can be saved without hearing the gospel. This is not everyone without exception. This is enough to prove, that everyone without exception is not the meaning of world, but a particular people. It leaves another door open. It leaves another question unanswered.

There are three obvious possible reasons of God for raising such a serpent on a stick to the Israelites. 1)To punish the disobedient who do not look. 2)To heal the sick who look. 3)To give everyone a chance to be healed. These three things are not mutually exclusive. One may look at these things and say they are all simultaneously true. Or only one is true.

Let's delve into this matter further. The condemned are condemned already. The purpose of Christ coming and being raised is not to condemn. Number one is not valid. Here the split starts. Two and Three or just Two. One person may say the intent was to heal. Another may say that it was to give the chance to be healed and by virtue heal those who look.

This is like the Arminian/Calvinist split. Did God come to save or Did he just intend to give everyone a chance and have the ability to be saved by raising Christ up on the cross. The same dichotomy arises with Moses. The Calvinist will say that the disobedient will remain disobedient without God. The Arminian will say that they have a choice and it is solely their choice that makes them disobedient. Yet, its it by chance and choice or by grace alone that men are saved. Part 5 gets into all the details.

Study of John 3:16, world part III

The change in world fits as being equally literal and more appropriate than everyone without exception. Before I say what change in 'world' is appropriate lets acknowledge that English has some of this variation in the use of the word, 'world'.

Lets look at the adjective 'worldly'. It in fact likely picked up its connotation from John in the Bible. This does not mean characteristic of every man without exception. Lets consider us have a little test on what worldly means. Multiple choice.

What fits best for describing a worldly strip-club.

A) 'Wooo look at the girl she has curves like the smokey mountains'. Worldly here is not characteristic of natural landforms.
B)'Wooo the strip-club is like every one without exception.' It is not characteristic of every man without exception either. It makes little sense.
C)'Wooo look at all the Asians, Europeans, Americans, Africans, and Australians in that Joint.' Nope, try again.
D)'Woo the strip-club is a degenerate place of immorality.'
E)'Woo the strip-club is full of living beings instead of Ghosts.' Otherwords, it means it is materialistic and of this realm.

The correct answer is obviously D. Some will try to make you believe the answer is B if it be found in the bible. We don't even transliterate 'Cosmos' into meaning the same thing as world or everyone without exception. The 'worldly' in English here means the evil and godless aspects of this world which shall pass away. This should clearly show that it is not as simple as picking a "literal" reading. Silly Rabbit, dictionaries are for kids! The Greek language has the same characteristic of multiple meanings.

I trust not the literal reading unless it is really literal and also in context. The question is which rendering to choose. We do not have a lot of help from the text here in surrounding context. Let it be know that St. John uses kosmos or 'world' many different ways in his books. Greek usage oratory often would witfully and contrast the use of a single word by using it many different ways close together. This Gospel has the marks of someone with a keen eye toward being an Evangelist over a historian. The literary tradition (Johannine) in which the Apostle John wrote shares this tendency of repeatition and rhetoric. This book was meant to be read aloud so it would have rhetorical wit in word usuage in the first century Hellenistic World.

Now having cast a shadow. Certainly this use of world in 3:16 here cannot be the same 'world' that we are told not to love or not to conform as found in first John. There is a big disconnect if God and Christ can love this world sooooo much. While we who are to being transformed into the image of Christ are not to love this world at all.

The World and adjective forms can also be used distributively to mean every tribe, tongue, and nation are represented. "The World court" is not the court of every one without exception. It is a small court made up of a few powerful nations that try cases. Again when we say 'the ancient world' we generally mean the important ancient civilizations. Not dirt diggers in south America. This use of 'world' often excludes a lot. No one really cares about the Nomads of Mongolia. Or the tribes in Africa outside of egypt, in the ancient world. This is not even everyone but only representational of what we know about the society at large. It is not everyone without exception. There are other examples but I don't want to be trite.

Finally, I wish not to write a meaning for world here with any complete certainty. I tend toward the nations or a Gentiles and Jews definition of world. It is by far the most common one found in the OT with respect to Christ's salvation. It is similar to a 'world' court use of the word 'world'. A world with every nation, tongue, and tribe represented. This is the most common use of the word in Bible. It is especially common because Christ was talking to the Jewish people. They understanded the distinction between Jew and Gentile quite well. Some Jews would not touch the Gentiles even with a ten foot pole. This interpretation falls in line with the Great Commission. It is not to covert everyone but it is to reach everyone. This world is representative not complete. Not all have faith. This definition of 'world' falls in line with God's aim. This goes into the design of God's atonement in the previous verses of John 3:16. This shall be expanded in part IV.

Study of John 3:16, part II

Let us keep the verse as many understand it. God is 'so' loving. I do not disagree with the extent of his love. I disagree with its extension. Furthermore, let me demolish the idea of the world as necessarily including everyone rather than those who actually are, elect and believers, scattered across it. Now if I were to say that the world hates George W. Bush. Would I be wrong? No, even if there are people who still liked him. The problem is not the offer or description of the gospel. It is with extending the world to mean everyone without exception. This is hardly plausible. Not all are saved. Not everyone hates Bush.

Let us indulge ourselves in believing that 'so' demonstrates the extent of God's love. This kind of love can only come from the love that Christ has for his Church, new israel and his bride. To believe that this world in 3:16 is everyone without exception is to destroy the truth of the great love between Christ and the church. There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another. Does this apply to everyone. No, for this is to deny Ephesians clearly states that Christ died for the church. No, for the greatest love is symbolized by marriage. To say otherwise is to wed Christ's love to a harlot. It is to destroy Ephesians verses about marriage. For the love for his bride is not so great anymore. Everyone will consent that this absolute love has its rightful place between a husband and a wife only. Ephesians would be utterly meaningless and without force if this unique, exclusive, and absolute connection of love between Christ and the church is severed or extended to mean everyone by virtue of saying that he died for everyone.

To enforce the great extent of love over this verse by necessity 'the world' here must be represented by believers only, being of all tongues, tribes, and nations in God's eyes. To hold onto the word "so" is equally damaging to modern interpretation. If the extension held for christ dieing for everyone, How can someone with such a great love upon them be cast out from God or be damned? Such a God would be cruel and unloving by keeping 'world' (everyone without exception) under judgment. We must maintain that it is right for God to condemn the world, everyone without exception. We must more clearly see that it is gracious that does not damn all but saves many. It should be clear that people should jump toward accepting 'in this fashion' over 'to such an extent' in the use of 'so'. It destroys the very fabric of Christ on our behalf not to do so.

The last No comes from the fact that the word 'world' has many nuanced meanings. Yet, is this change justified? See part 3. Yes, Let us return to what the bible actually says. Let us return to what the language unequivocally allows.

Study of John 3:16, part I

Many of the most quoted verses are understood with the most error. I was reading something about John 3:16 it was rather interesting. The verse basically says in the Greek text: (literally translated) "For God in this fashion loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Compare it to the standard translation:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

It seems that many people have been enamored by tradition on its translation.
There are two distinct greek things to notice. The change from whoever and so. 'Whoever' in Greek usually begins with 'pas' followed by a specific verb form. 'Pas' means all or everyone. The verb after pas modifies pas to mean all who are doing the verb. In English, it becomes whoever believes or whosoever comes instead of all who believe and all who come. This may seem redundant to some but 'whoever' seems to broaden the meaning into an invitation beyond 'everyone doing such and such verb'. Strangely, this verse has even been used to argue ability of the world to respond for being such a broad invitation.

The next change is 'so' to 'in this fashion'. This is the more appropriate translation from the original Greek. So? 'So' has more than one meaning in English. So can be evidentary as 'in this fashion' or mean the extent as in 'so much'. The KJV translators originally meant it as evidentary, not just in the extent of God's love. We have kept 'so' because it is popular. The historic change of meaning to "extent" from "in this fashion" is very understandable since God is love. Yet, John 3:16 is not the proof of it.

The use of "so" has obscured this verse. The change back is merited because 'so' obscures the literal reading in respect to the context. People now are content to use this verse out of context with the impression that is what it really says. Furthermore, some preference should be given to a purely literal reading. This alternate one links the verse back to its preceding verses. 3:14 speaks about the serpent who was lifted up to heal the Israelites (a specific people) by Moses. It parallels this act to Christ and his believers. 3:16 verse cannot be ripped apart from its context as easily as it has been in pop culture. Christ has been lifted up in the wilderness for all to look upon and be healed. That is how God loved the world. All who believe in him are saved. He will in no way cast them out. They shall in no way perish but inherit eternal life. We are save by looking upon christ and him crucified. The invitation is in this event. 3:16 certainly is not an invitation but is a mere link in a chain. The ESV is kind enough to foot note the literal rendering. When I first studied this, I did not have an ESV on hand. John 3:16 begins to look different after this subtle correction. It is not the key evangelical verse that should be on every bumpersticker. It is rather a link of a chain to all of John 3.

I am not a hypercalvinist. The bible has other places clearly exhorting and earnestly desiring for all people everywhere to believe. John 3:16 is just not it. We are saved freely by his grace. Yet, as many as those who receive him, to those he gave the power to be sons of God. They aught to receive him and we should encourage them to receive him by invitation. While it is true that, no one can receive it unless it is given from heaven; We do not presume. Let us sow the seed widely as God commands. Christ is not so small that he cannot save someone who has fallen by the wayside. He is not so small that he cannot save one the chief of sinners. There is more onf John 3, see part 2.

Blog status: Mired down in things

I still haven't finished all the charismatic stuff in general that I wanted to do. Or fit spiritual baptism into my Covenant Theology. I really just wanna get past it. It is low on scripture and gospel.

Like, it is all well and good to discuss it.

Yet, we need to remember the God behind it. We need to remember how he is not a God who is too far away to care. He took on flesh and humbly came to our aid. He cares so much that He sent His Son to die for our sin. Yet, He also died for us himself. He cares so much that God did not leave us alone on this dust ball after having made atonement. He cares so much that He wishes for us to be where he is. Heaven. How far both heaven and hell have been moved to make a way for us. Will he not give us all things? Oh, how great a God he is.

Oh yeah expect a radical John 3 study. I worked on it a long time ago. I need to fix it and bring it back.

Charismatic? Tongues

It is my belief that I must hold to what the Bible says and I bind my self to a conclusion. Well, I am open-minded enough to become reformed by my own study. Yet, I became reformed first and foremost by the experiences of my life. The church i attend merely pointed me in the right direction. I have some disagreements but they are slight. With this said, I cannot say that I would ever want a perfect church. If I found one I am afraid that I would have to leave it unless I spoil it.

Now let's discuss my Charismatic leanings for they are unique to me:

If you ask whether I am a third or second wave. I am neither. I fall more along the lines of a pre-charismatic like John Bunyan. I seek being filled with the spirit none-the-less. If you ask me about Prophecy, I will put it neatly into a box of what I believe it is and is not. It is turning old truths over anew. It is strengthened convictions and impressions, not new convictions or ethics. This allows bringing doctrine to bear on a person's life, opposed to the creation of new doctrines for their life.

Next, You ask me about "Praying in the spirit", I will first and foremost point to understandable prayer over tongues. I do not look favorably at one of the proposed purpose of tongues, when other means can be employed to the same end. These other means are not just equivalent. These means are far superior in every way. God's gift now becomes inferior in showing His sovereignty, grace, and care. Why even bother to even bestow it. I don't think gifts that ignore these aspects are bestowed. Tongues also must be informed with truth that is understandable and coherent. It is not fit to be used in worship otherwise. Worship must be in both spirit and truth. I have spoken in Tongues before and found it only mildly edifying. I am not moved to speak in tongues often but it may be in my gifting. The time would be better spent through the normal means of earnest prayer. This perhaps proves that it is the least of the spiritual gifts. It also proves that it is abusable. Yet, I don't think this is the right answer for it as a gift. I think it just proves that it is ill-suited to that end.

The previous christian contemplation article got me thinking on mysticism. Tongues would seem much more pagan if it is merely something one does for prayer, when it is not informing one of truth or conveying truth. I tend to doubt that tongues is a "prayer language" for this reason, even if spurious interpretations existed for it. Tongues here becomes like a meditation technique. A technique inherited and used by pagan mystics also. Tongues cannot exist as such for today.

This does not rule tongues out, especially when it comes other uses or real languages. Tongues would be more suited in dealing with truth in real languages. It is that simple. It is not suited for prayer. We are not conversing with angels. We are conversing with God. Furthermore, I do not believe tongues has any relation to spiritual baptism beyond that of other gifts. This is to say that tongues has as much relation to Spiritual baptism as Water baptism does. Period.

Next, If you point to extraordinary gifts, I will point to that which is really extraordinary first. Conversion is an extraordinary gift. Faith is an extraordinary gift. Repentance is an extraordinary gift. Grace is an extraordinary gift. This is in no way a limit, but rather the obvious. We need the seemingly ordinary gifts first. For they are surpassingly extraordinary. I love the focus on the ordinary means of the Gospel at my church for this reason. Tongues exists to edify the church, but misuse of it as substitute for prayer is not right. I cannot condone it. There needs to be interpretation of it so that it can serve as a sign gift. Or there needs to be a real means of grace in speaking it for other christians. (such as a prophetic word) Perhaps God can use gibberish to convey words of a real languages. I dare not presume it impossible. I find it more likely since the Greek word for tongues is the same as languages. (This is not the same as being fluent hearing/speaking in that other unlearned language, such is a sign of demon possession.)

Christian Contemplation

I have been looking over this stuff about christian contemplation or christian mysticism. I thought it would be relevant to discuss because it is not very well understood. Furthermore, experience driven christianity is a horrible abberation of the truth of God as reveal in the word. God specifically calls for Christianity driven experiences.

From my readings, some of this christian contemplation, (which is really not an action of active contemplation but a grace from God) runs parallel to charismatic occurences and experiences. Different language but same thing among non-charismatics. In short, the charismatic areas that fall into christian contemplation are that which follows: Being filled with the spirit/Infused contemplation. Presight of God/heaven from afar (everything leading up to the Beautific vision.), Apo-'something' prayer/praying in the spirit. (not tongues), etc.

Evidences of such are scattered among various writers There are often the evidences of the Holy spirit in their life. Not just normal means but evidence of a real active relationship. It shows up in diverse places with the impression that it could not be from any other source originally but God. I have come across such instances even from John Owen. Perhaps you know what I mean. It is like reading A.W. Tozer at times. It is as if a truth and conviction was so specific and strong that he would have had to encounter God to be so moved to write it. It is as though it was seared into his heart and memory by his union with God. This essentially is a mark left by Christian contemplation or charismatic encounters with God.

Yet, lets talk about the terms. Christian contemplation is hardly something one contemplates. Many try, but it is grace. Yet, not all of the practices of Christian contemplation fall in this definition. There is a large gap that forms, especially when it comes to the relevance of truth in practice. Various contemplation and meditation techniques that are not explicitly christian slip in. People seek the experience without the truth. This includes subjectivity but is not limited to it.

They say meaningless words and sounds (mantras) over and over. They rock back and forth. They do things merely physically like Yoga. Or try things that are merely psychological. They may also do things that are truthful and right but not motivated by the truth or that which is right. This is phariseeism or living the quiet life of monasticism. It now appears that christian contemplation is not something you do but, more or less, live according to the truth. It is something that must follow from worshipping in both spirit and truth. Being close to God and feeling our union with Him does not come from mediation, active contemplation, and doing good deeds. It comes from devotion specifically towards the truth and God. Some doctrine is needed. It is called doctrina sacra by Thomas Aquinas. Or sacred doctrine. It has roots in all good theology.

It is for this reason that C.S Lewis wrote: "For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand."

Yet, theology is dead bones without the spirit. All theology is be circular. It must lead away from the cross and back to it. The spirit at times must show us the way back. As for most Christian contemplation, it is stuck by its narrow focus on love. It is also stuck on catholic doctrine. I think love is important but not like the gospel which shows us love and much, much more like holiness, justice, power, grace. etc. It is not our will but His.