John 3:16

[MDK]

So, anyone has John 3:16 meant anything to you in you life? Has it brought you comfort at any time? Does it remind you that God is loving?

[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Thanks for asking. It means a great deal to me in the proper context of the full Gospel. When I think of John 3:16, I think of the full and true teachings of Christ in the fullness of what He was teaching. It makes me also thank Him for giving us a way to know what He taught, and especially that He makes Himself available to us in the incomparable gift of the Eucharist to apply the merits of His death on the cross to our lives and our time. It makes me grateful to know that to believe in Him, we must not be as Satan and simply know He exists, nor as those who erroneously teach that salvation is by faith alone. I will forever be plumbing the depths of God’s love, but to distort any of it takes away from the beauty of John 3:16. Likewise, any place we have distortions or ignorance, we will not know Christ. It also makes me grateful to know that through Apostolic Succession, we have those He sent out, such that if we listen to them we also listen to Christ. Through these who trace their office organically back to the Apostles including the Chief Apostle, we know the truth of the Gospel, and therefore know more about Christ. With Christ’s Prime Minister, we have an earthly shepherd who guides us to Christ. If one rejects the ones Christ sent, then they also reject Christ. We know if they reject Christ, that they also reject the Father who sent Christ. Therefore, for those who reject the ones sent by Christ, unfortunately, John 3:16 represents an incredible missed opportunity and could actually be a tragedy.

 

[DD2007]

No, I mean that they should learn and live the full Gospel as Christ taught, without distorted teachings of fallible flesh getting in the way.

Is this what you were hoping for? Why didn’t you say so, when asked in the beginning, instead of posting things like “I like John 3:16. This is the scripture forum, so it fits in well” or “I don’t see why this verse needs explaination. It’s quite well written. It’s a great verse to just meditate on.” See, this is why people were asking your intentions… as they knew there was some motivation, some need(s). Honesty is better, and is straight forward.

Whether you join or not is up to you. We simply seek the truth… that may be why it’s hard for you to “fellowship” with those who seek meaning and truth of Christ without distortion.

You say you don’t want me to distort anything, then you jab me for not providing any details with the plain scripture post I quoted. I thought that was the best way to have a discussion about what this scripture meant to people, things like “hey, i really like that one!” or “that’s my favorite verse”…etc

There is nothing distorted about posting a scripture without any notes at all! The only reason I had to say anything at all was because I was asked questions…

I think your view os distorted you think mine is…so lets move on.

Has this verse played a special part in your life at all? Wedding, graduation, Sunday School, did you wear it as eyblack during a national championship game?..

Note: Thanks for the above post we posted at the same time…so

 

[MDK]

You say you don’t want me to distort anything, then you jab me for not providing any details with the plain scripture post I quoted. I thought that was the best way to have a discussion about what this scripture meant to people, things like “hey, i really like that one!” or “that’s my favorite verse”…etc

There is nothing distorted about posting a scripture without any notes at all! The only reason I had to say anything at all was because I was asked questions…

I think your view os distorted you think mine is…so lets move on.

Has this verse played a special part in your life at all? Wedding, graduation, Sunday School, did you wear it as eyblack during a national championship game?..

Note: Thanks for the above post we posted at the same time…so

If you were really qualified to make an assessment on the correct meaning of Scriptures, then I would listen to you. I have learned from and do listen to those who are qualified, and I use the same practice of qualified scholars in deferring to the authority established by Christ. One must know the truth in order to spot falsehoods. There is no moral equivalence between our statements, as you have provided a meaning that is not compatible with the rest of Scriptures.

No, there was also no jab for you having not provided details. I posted to show how you were inconsistent, and not up front with intentions when people asked. See, this is why you need someone to explain something like God’s word to you, because you don’t yet seem to even understand what I’m saying. What I was contrasting was that originally you said there was no real reason to post John 3:16 other that it was beautiful, and that it spoke for itself…, even after people asked why… then later you said you had just wanted to post to get comments to see how it affected people’s lives… It’s not a problem to ask that, but you were not really up front, and those with good sense knew it. This is why I among others had asked, and wanted to discuss meaning of the Scripture.

You’re welcome for the post #61. I hope you read it fully, and take it appropriately as Christ would desire. I don’t want you to distort anything in the Good News of Christ, and neither does our Lord.

 

[DD2007]

John 3:16

[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

John 3:16

[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Does John 3:16 Teach Eternal Security Through Faith Alone?
By Steve Ray
catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/John3-16.doc

My mother asked me, “How would you like fifty cents?” I quickly responded, “I would like it very much.” What a silly question to ask an eight year old. Of course I would like fifty cents. Fifty cents was a lot of money when I was a little boy. My mother continued, “Here is a Bible verse I want you to memorize, and when you can recite it perfectly, I will give you the money.” And that is how I first learned and memorized some of the most well-known passages of the Bible. I memorized all of Psalm 23, “The Lord is My Shepherd . . . “ I learned Psalm 119:105, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” which was a constant reminder of the Bible’s place of preeminence in my life, the sole rule of faith and practice.

Of course, the most important verse to be memorized by any Evangelical Protestant child is John 3:16. It is a verse that encapsules the Gospel of Christ in one elegant and pregnant sentence, a sentence that reaches to the heart of God and explains the essence of history and salvation in twenty-five short words. The key action words stand out with stark clarity: loved, gave, believe, perish, and have. We can possess (have) something because of God’s act of love, and a response by man. The loving act of God in history, opened an otherwise locked and bolted door, providing man with an escape from damnation and an offer of eternal life.

No one comes to the Bible, or any other information for that matter, with complete objectivity, without a tradition and mindset by which the information is filtered. Before finding the Catholic Church last year, my wife and I, like our Evangelical friends, held to the fundamentalist traditions of belief in Christ and justification by faith alone. Recently I was approached by a Fundamentalist who said that “Abraham believed God and was made righteous (Gen. 15:6), and since the word believed is in the past tense, it meant that Abraham was saved in the instant He believed God. Abraham supposedly was saved and had eternal security from that point in time based upon his one-point-in-time mental assent. The Fundamentalist friend then moved to John 3:16 and tied Abraham’s belief to our belief in Christ.

There is an interesting twist with this verse that seemed to elude my Fundamentalist friend. I asked him if he had ever looked carefully at the tense of the action words in John 3:16. He hadn’t, and because his tradition tells him that one-time-belief is the basis of salvation, he automatically understood John to mean that by a momentary mental assent to Christ, one could be assured of eternal security and a guaranteed place in heaven. I dissected the verse to give him the information he lacked, and which I had lacked all my life before Catholic Church.

First a note about the action words. In Greek, the language of the New Testament there are many tenses for verbs. We will discuss two: aorist and present. The Aorist tense describes one point in time. It is as simple as that. Present is the current, ongoing present action. It is also as simple as that. Aorist is represented by a point ( . ). Present is represented by a continuous line ( ----- ). Now, with this simple understanding, lets look at John 3:16:

John 3:16 “For God so loved (aorist, a past point in time) the world, that he gave (aorist, a past point in time) his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth (present, current, progressive action) in him should not perish (aorist, a past point in time), but have (present, current, progressive action) everlasting life.” (KJV).

Interesting, uh? The present tense “that whosoever is believing in Him” puts a different light on the verse. One would expect the word *believe *to be aorist, to show it’s a “once-and-for-all” act, a “one-point-in-time” event. I used to say, “I believed in Christ on such and such a date so I know I am saved.” But now I say, I did believe in Christ, I am believing in Christ and I am being saved.” One could ask why Jesus switched to the present tense in a verse full of aorists. The present tense implies continually believing, a process of believing, and not the past mental assent I once thought.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Notice that “*have everlasting life” *is also in the present tense. It does not say you will have eternal life in the past or future, but that you will currently be having eternal life. One Greek Grammar explains the present tense this way, says, *“The present tense is basically linear or durative, ongoing in its kind of action. The durative notion may be expressed graphically by an unbroken line *(), *since the action is simply continuous. This is known as the progressive present. Refinements of this general rule will be encountered; however, the fundamental distinction will not be negated. *He who is currently, habitually and continuously believing . . . will be currently and presently having eternal life. One needs to be careful with the interpretation of the Bible, for what what believes and understands has eternal consequences.

Does the word believe mean a mere mental assent. The biblical term believe can’t be reduced to just a mental acceptance. The word believe in biblical times carried with it the concept of obedience and reliance. Kittel says “pisteuo means ‘to trust’ (also ‘to obey’) . . .” Vines says, “. . . reliance upon, not mere credence . . .” This is confirmed further by John the Baptist’s statement in John 3:36 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (KJV) The work apeitheo is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is *disobey. *The verse in the RSV says “He who believes (“is believing”, present tense) in the Son. . . he who disobeys (“is disobeying” present tense) the Son . . . “

The NASB translates the verse like this: *“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”. *Kittel, a Protestant reference work, clearly defines *apeitheo *to mean “to be disobedient.” The word *belief *has the element of obedience wrapped in its arms and the opposite of biblical belief is disobedience. One cannot consider themselves to be biblical if they teach salvation by mental assent (which amounts to cheap grace) *without *the subsequent and corollary present and ongoing obedience.

My Fundamentalist friend has never responded to the explanation of these verses. I hope someday he will see past the high walls of his Fundamentalist traditions and see the great beauty of the Church and her past. The wall is very difficult to peer over, but many of us have done it. Many of us have not merely peered over the great barrier, we have actually climbed and struggled, finally scaling the barrier and finding the glory of the Catholic Church.

---

Endnotes:

1. Aorist Tense: The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point (“inceptive aorist”), or having ended at a certain point (“cumulative aorist”), or merely existing at a certain point (“punctiliar aorist”). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense suffices in most cases.
2. Present Tense: According to Dana and Mantey in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament “The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is the linear tense . . . the progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, which in the nature of the case do not need any “present punctiliar” tense . . .” Narrowing it down further they say, “There are three varieties of the present tense in which its fundamental idea of progress is especially patent. Under The Progressive Present “This use is manifestly nearest the root idea of the tense. It signifies action in progress , or state of persistence . . .” In short the present tense expresses ongoing action in the present time.

3.* New Testament Greek* (James Hewitt, B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Hedrickson Publishers; 1986, page 13)

1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, a renowned Protestant theological dictionary of ten volumes. Eerdmans, 1968
2. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W. E. Vines (TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984)

 

[DD2007]

I’ve noticed recently that John 3:16 makes some fear that if read to much it will make the unwary forget to work for their salvation.

Should John 3:16 not be read?

 

[MDK]

Notice that “*have everlasting life” *is also in the present tense. It does not say you will have eternal life in the past or future, but that you will currently be having eternal life. One Greek Grammar explains the present tense this way, says, *“The present tense is basically linear or durative, ongoing in its kind of action. The durative notion may be expressed graphically by an unbroken line *(), *since the action is simply continuous. This is known as the progressive present. Refinements of this general rule will be encountered; however, the fundamental distinction will not be negated. *He who is currently, habitually and continuously believing . . . will be currently and presently having eternal life. One needs to be careful with the interpretation of the Bible, for what what believes and understands has eternal consequences.

Does the word believe mean a mere mental assent. The biblical term believe can’t be reduced to just a mental acceptance. The word believe in biblical times carried with it the concept of obedience and reliance. Kittel says “pisteuo means ‘to trust’ (also ‘to obey’) . . .” Vines says, “. . . reliance upon, not mere credence . . .” This is confirmed further by John the Baptist’s statement in John 3:36 “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (KJV) The work apeitheo is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is *disobey. *The verse in the RSV says “He who believes (“is believing”, present tense) in the Son. . . he who disobeys (“is disobeying” present tense) the Son . . . “

The NASB translates the verse like this: *“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”. *Kittel, a Protestant reference work, clearly defines *apeitheo *to mean “to be disobedient.” The word *belief *has the element of obedience wrapped in its arms and the opposite of biblical belief is disobedience. One cannot consider themselves to be biblical if they teach salvation by mental assent (which amounts to cheap grace) *without *the subsequent and corollary present and ongoing obedience.

My Fundamentalist friend has never responded to the explanation of these verses. I hope someday he will see past the high walls of his Fundamentalist traditions and see the great beauty of the Church and her past. The wall is very difficult to peer over, but many of us have done it. Many of us have not merely peered over the great barrier, we have actually climbed and struggled, finally scaling the barrier and finding the glory of the Catholic Church.

---

Endnotes:

1. Aorist Tense: The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point (“inceptive aorist”), or having ended at a certain point (“cumulative aorist”), or merely existing at a certain point (“punctiliar aorist”). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense suffices in most cases.
2. Present Tense: According to Dana and Mantey in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament “The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is the linear tense . . . the progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, which in the nature of the case do not need any “present punctiliar” tense . . .” Narrowing it down further they say, “There are three varieties of the present tense in which its fundamental idea of progress is especially patent. Under The Progressive Present “This use is manifestly nearest the root idea of the tense. It signifies action in progress , or state of persistence . . .” In short the present tense expresses ongoing action in the present time.

3.* New Testament Greek* (James Hewitt, B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D.; Hedrickson Publishers; 1986, page 13)

1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, a renowned Protestant theological dictionary of ten volumes. Eerdmans, 1968
2. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W. E. Vines (TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984)

Nice post Randy. I like Steve Ray as well. He, Scott Hahn… these guys are smart and love God, not trading a chance to truly know Him to whom every knee must bend, in exchange for a chance to keep foolish pride.

 

[DD2007]

When I was a kid I memorized the King James Version of John 3:16

John 3:16 (King James Version)

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

My first bible as a kid was a King James Version. Most people back then used them in Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When I was a kid I memorized the King James Version of John 3:16

John 3:16 (King James Version)

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

My first bible as a kid was a King James Version. Most people back then used them in Church.

Me, too. I was Protestant then. Steve Ray was a Protestant before his conversion, and I posted his thoughts in posts #65 & #66.

Care to interact with any of that?

 

[Strategery]

I’ve noticed recently that John 3:16 makes some fear that if read to much it will make the unwary forget to work for their salvation.

Should John 3:16 not be read?

If that’s what you take away from this discussion, there’s really nothing to be said.

However if you want to notice what actually was said in this discussion, you’d take away the idea that it’s important to understand what “believe” truly means.

 

[DD2007]

Me, too. I was Protestant then. Steve Ray was a Protestant before his conversion, and I posted his thoughts in posts #65 & #66.

Care to interact with any of that?

Nope. That’s not what this is about. That would be in the apologetics area. I just wanted to post John 3:16.

 

[DD2007]

If that’s what you take away from this discussion, there’s really nothing to be said.

However if you want to notice what actually was said in this discussion, you’d take away the idea that it’s important to understand what “believe” truly means.

That is not what I take away form this at all. I’m simply leading up to the statement that I see no danger in John 3:16. It is a very inspiring verse, a great one to think about and hear of God’s love for us. In no way should it be avoided or feared. It is rather uplifting, really.

 

[DD2007]

Here it is in the Douay Rheims version:

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

I have the Challoner version of this at home.

 

[MDK]

If that’s what you take away from this discussion, there’s really nothing to be said.

However if you want to notice what actually was said in this discussion, you’d take away the idea that it’s important to understand what “believe” truly means.

That’s very good strategery, Strategery. We know what you mean. However, those single-mindedly pushing a prejudicial agenda against something, will not allow something as “trivial” as the truth change their errant course.

 

[DD2007]

That’s very good strategery, Strategery. We know what you mean. However, those single-mindedly pushing a prejudicial agenda against something, will not allow something as “trivial” as the truth change their errant course.

The only agenda with posting John 3:16 is a desire to glorify God.

 

[Strategery]

That is not what I take away form this at all. I’m simply leading up to the statement that I see no danger in John 3:16. It is a very inspiring verse, a great one to think about and hear of God’s love for us. In no way should it be avoided or feared. It is rather uplifting, really.

You got the idea somehow, and you said that you’ve noticed it recently.

What makes you think that, based on the discussion here?

 

[DD2007]

You got the idea somehow, and you said that you’ve noticed it recently.

What makes you think that, based on the discussion here?

Honestly, I get the impression that some here on this thread believe that they need to work to earn their salvation and thus are skiddish about a verse that doesn’t mention works in it.

I think the official Roman Catholic teaching is as it stands in their joint declaration on the doctrine of justification as signed in unity with the Lutheran World Federation clearly states that salvation is by Grace through faith.

So, many Catholics I know that have studied their faith deny that works on our part are required for salvation.

But, that in no way is the point of the thread. John 3:16 is, which gives us a glimps at the vast amount of love God has for us.

 

[MDK]

Honestly, I get the impression that some here on this thread believe that they need to work to earn their salvation and thus are skiddish about a verse that doesn’t mention works in it.

I think the official Roman Catholic teaching is as it stands in their joint declaration on the doctrine of justification as signed in unity with the Lutheran World Federation clearly states that salvation is by Grace through faith.

So, many Catholics I know that have studied their faith deny that works on our part are required for salvation.

But, that in no way is the point of the thread. John 3:16 is, which gives us a glimps at the vast amount of love God has for us.

When a door-to-door salesman comes to the door presenting a nice package, do we buy because of the nice looking package without looking inside? No, we don’t, because we know when one is trying to sell something with a nice exterior package, but with contents missing, something just isn’t right. It doesn’t stand up to the truth of Christ.

Consider that we desire the word of Christ with the full meaning also. We don’t desire a true quote of Christ with a false light of meaning and shone through it.

The deception foisted forward that the Catholic Church somehow agrees with Lutherans on God’s saving Grace by “faith alone” is simply one of darkness. When one reads the statement, it is simply made on what the two share. The statement is true in its wording in that it is based on faith, but certainly not complete in wording to express the full understanding. Lutherans don’t like it because it doesn’t read “faith alone” and Catholics know that “faith alone” is against Scriptures, such that faith without works is dead. The Catholic teaching is correctly that salvation is from God’s Grace through living faith working in love.

If a Catholic denies that works play a role in Salvation, they are wrong. Likely, they are really saying that we can’t simply work our way into Heaven, which is true. Anyone claiming that the Catholic Church has ever taught that we work our way into Heaven is simply ignorant, whether they claim to be an official member of the Church or are outside and attempt in vain to denigrate. The one attempting to foist lies is the one who ends up looking bad. We have told the truth, and will continue to do so. The truth defends Catholicism, because Catholicism is built on the Truth. All other churches are built on men’s fallible interpretations and so only have some falsehoods mixed with some truths… and so can never really tell one what is true and what is false.

 

[Strategery]

Honestly, I get the impression that some here on this thread believe that they need to work to earn their salvation and thus are skiddish about a verse that doesn’t mention works in it.

I think the official Roman Catholic teaching is as it stands in their joint declaration on the doctrine of justification as signed in unity with the Lutheran World Federation clearly states that salvation is by Grace through faith.

So, many Catholics I know that have studied their faith deny that works on our part are required for salvation.

But, that in no way is the point of the thread. John 3:16 is, which gives us a glimps at the vast amount of love God has for us.

Thanks for your honesty, now we’re getting somewhere.

I think your impression is mistaken, at least with me personally. I’m not squirmish at all disucssing John 3:16.

It doesn’t appear that you are valuing the time we’re spending on what “believe” means. Just 20 verses later, in the same discourse, Christ himself identifies disobedience as the opposite of belief. There are many other places in the new testament that support this.

You’re perceiving all of this as a need to “work for salvation”, which are buzzwords in the Protestant paradigm. The point that you’re not getting is this: submission to God’s will and obdedience to God’s commands **are ** belief, not a result of belief. There is no belief without obedience.