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!
Thank you!
Magic Thinking is no way to go through life ... if you are feeling conviction it not from me, it is resonating in your soul, a still small voice calling you to His Grace.
“These unwritten traditions span the whole life of the Church. The veneration of saints, statuary, iconography, Church architecture, the offering of incense, the lighting of candles, the public affirmation of our faith in the Eucharist through Corpus Christi celebrations, and the crucifix at the focus of our Churches.”
Even the Catholic encyclopedia states that lighting of candles and other customs came from pagan religions.
There is no inspired architecture, veneration of saints, statuary, iconography, etc. and can’t be found before 100 ad. As such, it was not part of the Apostles tradition.
This is what happens when historical neophytes try their hand at attempting to undermine Catholicism.
The seven great letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, written around the year 106 while on his way to Rome to be thrown to the beasts, take for granted the existence of local hierarchical churches, ruled by bishops who are assisted by priests and deacons. Ignatius, a living disciple of John the Apostle, writes that “Jesus Christ...is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.”
Within each city there was a single church under a bishop, who in turn was assisted by priests in the spiritual realm and deacons in the administrative. The latter devoted themselves especially to alms-giving, and a striking feature of primitive Christianity is its organized benevolence. These local churches were largely self-sufficient but would group around a mother church in the region — Antioch, Alexandria, Rome — and the bishops of each region would occasionally meet in councils. But they all considered themselves part of a universal Church — the Catholic Church, as Ignatius first called it — united in belief, ritual, and regulation.
“This is what happens when historical neophytes try their hand at attempting to undermine Catholicism.”
Yeah. Neophytes like the Catholic Encyclopedia! And that neophyte Pope Bennedict! Both of which demonstrate your claim as false - including the “pope”
Ignatius - sorry ‘fish. Bogus. Watch what you willingly swallow, especially when it seems to support what you already believe.
http://biblehub.com/library/killen/the_ancient_church/chapter_ii_the_ignatian_epistles.htm
That’s funny! I’m not the one spinning out of context Luther quotes. Tell me, did you go to the site I referenced so you could understand what he was really saying? Do you honestly think Luther would be exonerating the Roman Catholic church over the authority of Divinely inspired Scripture in the midst of his battles with them??? My how enamored you are with the “wisdom” of men (it’s called foolishness with God for a reason).
How could they “all” have been in agreement when they didn’t even get around to defining “transubstaniation” until the thirteenth century!
The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century.[13][14] By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.[15] The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215, spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood”.[17]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
“The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century.[13][14] By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.[15] The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215, spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood”.[17]”
And after 1300 years of “development”, that belief is read back into the Scriptures as if it originated there... And is sworn to as always being held.
And I ask you sincerely why are you so against non Catholic Christians who are believers and followers of Jesus Christ but disagree with you about this Catholic doctrine? Can you not bring yourself to agree to disagree? You condescendedly add, “I do hope that you seek the Truth of Jesus.”, why do you presume someone has not found the truth of Jesus just because they don’t agree with you on the Eucharist?
Do you believe non-Catholic Christians can be saved or are you in disagreement with your own catechism on that as well?
Wow!
SOP!
Riiiiight...Ignatius wrote that in English and used “Catholic” as a proper noun???? It’s funny how many times you mock and ridicule the non-catholic Christians here as ignorant and ill informed, yet you trot out this canard even after you have been corrected numerous times. If all the ammunition you have is blanks and insipid, flaccid warmed over “apologetics”, save it for the forums where you can’t be challenged because you won’t get away with in here!
Yep! That’s how they do it. Now you would think all these brilliant theologians would figure this out before they swim that polluted river Tiber.
That through His disciples adhering to and maintaining this ordained custom often, that all men everywhere would be reminded that the Person Jesus was/is God come in the flesh, God Present with us as a human in a human body, until He comes back and is again physically seen in the flesh, at which time the Remembrance Supper would be utterly superfluous.
All this attempt to make bread and grape juice something changed, holy, mysterious, manipulated only by some selected cult leaders for their power over credulous ignoramuses is simply just puff, a product of a system meant to snare gullible slaves to be constantly milked of their substance by simony.
And that's what setting up a power stucture over indivduals and external to their local churches is all about. Arguing over consubstantiation and transubstantiation only serves to give these theories the aura of Scriptural legitimacies, which they do not deserve.
I say, if some people in a free society wish to serve the purveyors of these irrational systems, let them do so, until common sense takes charge. But do not keep on arguing with them if they persist despite godly counsel. At that point, arguing with a closed mind is a waste of time when there are others that long to hear the wonderful words of life.
For me, goin
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Joshua 244:15 AV).
Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, and assembling with a local autonomous immersionist Bible-believing Christ-serving fellowship is not all that too difficult; and if it doesn't exist, to start it with other true believers seeking reality in their life with God.
Would that make the wafer box the Ark of the second covenant?
BTW; tabernacle is where GOD dwells.
It's good to know HE is as safe as the Social Security funds!
The Tabernacle, according to the Hebrew Bible, was the portable earthly dwelling place for the divine presence...
See there; you silly Prots; God IS in the essense of the wafers after all!
Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
You just NOW figgerin'; that out?!?!?
Your use of “This is my body” implies a negative derogatory comment about people that do NOT find Rome's explanation of metaphor vs reality correct.
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.