The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, I realize you are a Calvinist. I am an Arminianist, however.

Congratulations! 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know of at least 3 bible that all have different translations. Now they maybe very similar but they do not have the same books.

Ethiopian Orthodox Bible
Catholic Bible
King James Bible

And there are more...

The bible you are talking about is the King James Bible. So, you believe that Catholics and Ethiopian Christians are not true Christians?

Why are they not true Christians and you are?

Uh yes...now I see the confusion.

You're right. Not all "Christian Churches" recognize the canon of Scripture as stipulated previously -- 39 books OT, 27 books NT. Some of them add books.

As I have mentioned earlier, the majority of evangelicals (minus fundamentalists) recognize as authentic, any professing Christian from any tradition who subscribes to the five essential doctrines of biblical Christianity. These being:

1. The doctrine of Scripture
2. The doctrine of God
3. The doctrine of humanity
4. The doctrine of sin
5. The doctrine of salvation

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and all Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the doctrine of salvation -- namely, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone [Ephesians 2:8-9]. As a consequence, evangelicals do not recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with the King James Bible, unless you were pointing out that the KJV contains a 66 book canon. I have to admit I was somewhat confused when you made this point, since the 1611 KJV included the apocrypha.

As to the value of the apocrypha itself, there are some scholars (evangelicals among them) who see worthwhile history recorded in its pages -- especially concerning the intertestimental period. But conservative scholars would not elevate the apocrypha to the level of Scripture. Liberal theologians generally demote the remainder of the Bible, rather than promote the apocrypha.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Uh yes...now I see the confusion.

You're right. Not all "Christian Churches" recognize the canon of Scripture as stipulated previously -- 39 books OT, 27 books NT. Some of them add books.

As I have mentioned earlier, the majority of evangelicals (minus fundamentalists) recognize as authentic, any professing Christian from any tradition who subscribes to the five essential doctrines of biblical Christianity. These being:

1. The doctrine of Scripture
2. The doctrine of God
3. The doctrine of humanity
4. The doctrine of sin
5. The doctrine of salvation

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and all Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the doctrine of salvation -- namely, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone [Ephesians 2:8-9]. As a consequence, evangelicals do not recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with the King James Bible, unless you were pointing out that the KJV contains a 66 book canon. I have to admit I was somewhat confused when you made this point, since the 1611 KJV included the apocrypha.

As to the value of the apocrypha itself, there are some scholars (evangelicals among them) who see worthwhile history recorded in its pages -- especially concerning the intertestimental period. But conservative scholars would not elevate the apocrypha to the level of Scripture. Liberal theologians generally demote the remainder of the Bible, rather than promote the apocrypha.

OK, sorry for the confusion. Now, why is your beliefs correct, and all those other people's wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Arminianism for the win.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." [NLT]

John 4:16 says, "'Go and get your husband,' Jesus told her." [NLT]

I'm not sure what sort of flaw you are implying, or what relationship you are trying to draw between Nicodemus the Pharisee (John 3) and the Samaritan woman (John 4), but there is neither flaw nor contradiction in these passages.

Now to your question: What happens to those who lived a good life but never knew about Jesus; do they still go to hell?

Yes. They still go to hell. And why? Because they are imperfect sinners who are unsuitable for God's perfect heaven. Once more, they know it!

God has given everyone a conscience -- an inner sense of right and wrong -- a sense that there has to be something beyond the tangibles of this world. While this inner sense is insufficient to save a person, it is more than sufficient to make a person conscious of his sins. Here's how the Bible puts it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." [Romans 1:18-20/NASB]

While the special revelation of the Bible might not be universally available, the general revelation of God's created order is open to every competent person. ("Competent" excludes very young children or mentally disabled persons who are not able to comprehend their guilt before God. "The Lord preserves the simple." [Psalm 116:6/NASB])

It might be nice to think that some lost tribe in some deep jungle might actually live sinless lives, but the Bible says otherwise. Unfortunately, every person who has ever been born (except Jesus) was born with a sinful nature. We are all sinners who constantly do things we know are wrong [Romans 3:10-23]. When our friends from the long lost judge tribe stand before the Lord on judgment day, they will be without excuse. Each of them will be guilty of imperfection, and this is more than enough to condemn them.

"Hold on!" someone might protest. "That's not fair! How can God condemn people, when they haven't even had a chance to believe in Jesus?"

And they'd be right. It's not fair. If God were fair, He would immediately throw every sinner into hell and be done with it. Judicial fairness demands that all offenders be equally punished in accordance with the law, and the law says all sinners must die [Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23].

But God isn't fair. He is so much MORE than fair. The Bible says that God is GRACIOUS [2 Thessalonians 2:16-17].

Yahweh loves human beings so much, that He has taken extraordinary action to save some of us, even though all of us deserve hell. Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor". Even though we can't hope to deserve it, God extends His grace to every person who hears the message about Jesus and chooses to believe.

But this brings us back to our friends in the jungle. If they have never heard of Jesus, they are facing a doomed eternity apart from God. And that's why crazy Christians like me spend our time tell as many people as will listen about the wonderful love of God in Christ. In fact, it's the reason I'm talking to you now. Jesus had a lot to say about God's grace. One thing He told His disciples as He sent them out preaching.... "Freely you have received. Freely give." [Matthew 10:8] For those who have received the forgiveness God offers in Jesus Christ, it is our great privilege and responsibility to pass on what we know.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I misplaced the colon; John 14:6; you knew that.

Anyhow, you failed to answer the question, what is man who has never had the chance to either accept or deny Jesus-God as his personal savior to do? Why would God in his infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man to never have the chance?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thankfully, God does not measure fairness by any standard but His own.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thankfully, God does not measure fairness by any standard but His own.

That never seemed like a poorly thought out cop-out for monotheism?

Personally I believe the same thing but then again I don't believe in the same gods as you.

Anyone else get the impression he goes into religious websites and post like an ignorant blathering atheist?

Originally posted by Robtard
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I misplaced the colon; John 14:6; you knew that.

Anyhow, you failed to answer the question, what is man who has never had the chance to either accept or deny Jesus-God as his personal savior to do? Why would God in his infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man to never have the chance?

Please do not presume to discern what I know. I did not know why you cited John 4:16, and did not assume you meant John 14:6. I avoid making assumptions; they usually get me in trouble.

In answer to your question: What is a person who has never heard of Jesus supposed to do?

Answer: Die. The unavoidable destiny of all unforgiven sinners is hell.

Why would God in His infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man that never gives Him a chance?

Answer: Because He wanted to. Again, a human definition of fairness might require God to give everyone a chance, but the biblical definition of fairness requires that God send everyone to hell. The fact that He selectively permits some to be saved is a product of GRACE, not fairness. Remember what Yahweh said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [Exodus 33:19b/NIV] This concept was reiterated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:15.

Consequently, we see that the body of Christ is made up of people to whom God has extended His sovereign grace [Ephesians 1:3-14]. It is a sin for the creature to suggest that his Creator is unfair [Romans 9:20]. To do so is to judge God by human standards, and we lack that authority.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well i'm not sure why I would want to follow someone that close-minded.

And, of course, that is your choice. I, on the other hand, willingly submit my whole life and being to the authority of my Creator and Redeemer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, sorry for the confusion. Now, why is your beliefs correct, and all those other people's wrong.

Here's the challenge. No matter what "brand" of Christianity a person might espouse, it is necessary to establish some basic ground rules for the "who's right" debate, or we'll just end up talking in circles.

In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and conservative Protestantism, we have common ground in the 66 elemental books of the historic biblical canon. While some might add a few books to this collection, none reject the afore mentioned 66. So our arguments would begin with an acceptance of the Bible's authority as the inspired written Word of God.

Additionally, all three groups affirm the deity of Jesus Christ, including His literal bodily resurrection, ascension, and ultimate return.

Acknowledgment of these ground rules is necessary if we are to have a meaningful debate over who's version of Christianity is the most faithful to Scripture. If you were willing, for the sake of argument, to accept these same stipulations, I would be happy to present a case in support of conservative Protestantism. If you are unwilling to permit this groundwork, my arguments would be meaningless.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
And, of course, that is your choice. I, on the other hand, willingly submit my whole life and being to the authority of my Creator and Redeemer.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Please do not presume to discern what I know. I did not know why you cited John 4:16, and did not assume you meant John 14:6. I avoid making assumptions; they usually get me in trouble.

In answer to your question: What is a person who has never heard of Jesus supposed to do?

Answer: Die. The unavoidable destiny of all unforgiven sinners is hell.

Why would God in His infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man that never gives Him a chance?

Answer: Because He wanted to. Again, a human definition of fairness might require God to give everyone a chance, but the biblical definition of fairness requires that God send everyone to hell. The fact that He selectively permits some to be saved is a product of GRACE, not fairness. Remember what Yahweh said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [Exodus 33:19b/NIV] This concept was reiterated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:15.

Consequently, we see that the body of Christ is made up of people to whom God has extended His sovereign grace [Ephesians 1:3-14]. It is a sin for the creature to suggest that his Creator is unfair [Romans 9:20]. To do so is to judge God by human standards, and we lack that authority.

Then God wouldn't be a "kind, just and forgiving God", if God purposely set men to fail and didn't give them the choice (negates freewill) to either accept Jesus-God or not. Which God do you worship again?

Funny, your ilk often attribute human qualities to God.

Originally posted by Robtard
is there a back-door to heaven?

There is, but if you go through it, god sends an earthquake to the holy land.

Originally posted by Devil King
There is, but if you go through it, god sends an earthquake to the holy land.

That was a LOL.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So how about taking some responsibility for yourself?

If I took responsibility for my own destiny, I would be placing myself on the same path you're walking -- the road to destruction. I've been there and I'm not going back. Only God has the power to rescue a person from sin and death. Only God has the wisdom to help a person live life to the fullest.

God's teachings are often hard to take. Jesus once said some things that made people so mad, crowds of them refused to follow Him anymore. He turned to the twelve disciples and asked them if they were leaving too. Simon Peter answered:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68/NIV]

And likewise Tim Rout answers: Where else can I go? You, Jesus, are the only one who has the eternal life I need.

Self-righteousness is a stumbling block for many. But an honest person can see his own faults. An introspective person can even discern his utter moral poverty before God. And a wise person knows enough to repent and receive God's forgiveness before the clock runs out.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then God wouldn't be a "kind, just and forgiving God", if God purposely set men to fail and didn't give them the choice (negates freewill) to either accept Jesus-God or not. Which God do you worship again?

Funny, your ilk often attribute human qualities to God.

You are correct in asserting that some Christians believe in free will. This includes most Eastern Orthodox theologians, most Roman Catholic theologians, and most Arminian Protestants.

That said, I belong to a slightly different subdivision of Protestantism known as the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition. We believe free will is essentially an illusion. All my former arguments are based on a Calvinistic hermeneutic. You are therefore asking me to comment on a doctrine (free will) that I do not espouse.

However, you point out a serious dilemma theologians have been discussing for centuries. If free will is true, then God is a tyrant if He doesn't offer salvation to absolutely everyone. This has led some Arminians to postulate alternative theories.

Some Arminians have suggested that God gives the uninformed a chance to choose for or against Jesus the moment after death. However, this runs contrary to the Bible's assertion that death is followed by summary judgment, not a cosmic evangelism crusade [Hebrews 9:27].

Other Arminians have suggested that God simply pardons the uninformed out of hand. But again, this is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on human conscience; specifically, that God will judge people based on their general knowledge of His holy nature reflected in the creation [Romans 1:18-20]. It is clear from the context that such general revelation is sufficient to condemn people for their sins, but insufficient to direct them to Christ.

Belief in free will is common among Christians. Unfortunately, it is not common in the pages of the Bible. While I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

And finally, I would like to address your last remark about those of my "ilk" -- I take it you mean Bible believing Christians -- who attribute human qualities to God. While some Christians have doubtless done this, my arguments are free from such abstractions. The qualities I attribute to God, are the qualities He attributes to Himself in the pages of Scripture. It is simple to see where you went off course in your logic. Evangelical theology is no easy discipline.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You are correct in asserting that some Christians believe in free will. This includes most Eastern Orthodox theologians, most Roman Catholic theologians, and most Arminian Protestants.

That said, I belong to a slightly different subdivision of Protestantism known as the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition. We believe free will is essentially an illusion. All my former arguments are based on a Calvinistic hermeneutic. You are therefore asking me to comment on a doctrine (free will) that I do not espouse.

However, you point out a serious dilemma theologians have been discussing for centuries. If free will is true, then God is a tyrant if He doesn't offer salvation to absolutely everyone. This has led some Arminians to postulate alternative theories.

Some Arminians have suggested that God gives the uninformed a chance to choose for or against Jesus the moment after death. However, this runs contrary to the Bible's assertion that death is followed by summary judgment, not a cosmic evangelism crusade [Hebrews 9:27].

Other Arminians have suggested that God simply pardons the uninformed out of hand. But again, this is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on human conscience; specifically, that God will judge people based on their general knowledge of His holy nature reflected in the creation [Romans 1:18-20]. It is clear from the context that such general revelation is sufficient to condemn people for their sins, but insufficient to direct them to Christ.

Belief in free will is common among Christians. Unfortunately, it is not common in the pages of the Bible. While I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

And finally, I would like to address your last remark about those of my "ilk" -- I take it you mean Bible believing Christians -- who attribute human qualities to God. While some Christians have doubtless done this, my arguments are free from such abstractions. The qualities I attribute to God, are the qualities He attributes to Himself in the pages of Scripture. It is simple to see where you went off course in your logic. Evangelical theology is no easy discipline.

You could have just said "I'm not really a Christian, as I do not follow the teachings of Christ" or the OT for that matter. I understand where you're coming from now, just like many other sects, you've taken the Bible and molded it around your own bias; that's the pedestal you stand on and bark down from.

In other words: a christian dog?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Here's the challenge. No matter what "brand" of Christianity a person might espouse, it is necessary to establish some basic ground rules for the "who's right" debate, or we'll just end up talking in circles.

In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and conservative Protestantism, we have common ground in the 66 elemental books of the historic biblical canon. While some might add a few books to this collection, none reject the afore mentioned 66. So our arguments would begin with an acceptance of the Bible's authority as the inspired written Word of God.

Additionally, all three groups affirm the deity of Jesus Christ, including His literal bodily resurrection, ascension, and ultimate return.

Acknowledgment of these ground rules is necessary if we are to have a meaningful debate over who's version of Christianity is the most faithful to Scripture. If you were willing, for the sake of argument, to accept these same stipulations, I would be happy to present a case in support of conservative Protestantism. If you are unwilling to permit this groundwork, my arguments would be meaningless.

That is fine and all, but the answer I was looking for was faith. There comes a point were you believe what you believe because you have faith that it is true. That is the place were we all meet, and share the same belief. You cannot prove the bible to be true, and if you did, it would be irrelevant. Faith is all we really have.