John 3:16 Support for Arminianism?

When discussing the meaning of a piece of text, isn't it important to read it in context? John 3:16 falls within a larger passage that is addressed to someone, has a purpose and is saying something. In particular, it concerns belief in what John terms "the Son", it is addressed to one who does not believe, and it lays down a rather blunt condemnation for that disbelief.

If the subject of the Biblical passage being discussed is belief and the conseqences of failure to believe, then it is certainly relevant to consider the question of how individuals who lack the necessary belief mght come to attain it.

I would argue that any theological interpretation of a passage like this will have to consider the mechanics of belief formation and conversion. Is it realistic to adopt an interpretation in which God requires something from man that man cannot give? But if man can reach knowledge of the divine under his own power, and if he is going to be condemned for failing to do so, then the Christian probably needs to devote some attention to how this is performed.

This brings us precisely to the issues surrounding Arminianism and pre-destination. If it turns out to be the case that man can only know the truth of Christian revelation through direct divine intervention of some sort, and not through some action of his own, then the choice of who believes and who doesn't would appear to be God's and not man's.

But that would seem to contradict the moral theory expressed in John 3:19 and 3:20. There belief is treated as something transparent, and failure to believe is ascribed to a desire to avoid judgement for evil deeds.

My point is that there are real issues here, issues of crucial importance to what Christianity is, and to what it requires of the rest of us in order that we might come into the right relationship with God.

The first is something that Ed K kind of implicitly put in my mouth. It's his argument, not mine, that the historical resurrection would prove all of the rest of Christianity's claims (the nature of the one resurrected, his salvational role and so on). It was my argument that a miracle might not prove quite that much.

The second is a total red herring. I have never said anything remotely like that, on this thread or on any other.

You aren't obliged to debate anything, Bill. It's completely up to you which posts you respond to and what you say when you do. But similarly, you don't have the authority to determine what methodology other people must use or who may participate in the threads.

And other people may wish to interject material that's of interest to them.

 

Mr Komoszewski chooses to misquote me yet again. I did not say he knew nothing about confessional Lutheranism. I did imply that affiliation with Dallas Seminary was not consistent with confessional Lutheranism. Given the distinctive theological emphases of Dallas Seminary (of which this lesser breed without the law has some limited awareness), I believe that few, if any, Dallas profs would claim that Dallas' confessional perspective is that of the Book of Concord (1580).

Mr Komoszewski told me in a private message that he does too hold to the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper, although he has changed his views on other doctrinal loci. Well and good; those changes mean that he cannot give a quia subscription--perhaps not even a quatenus supscription--to the Lutheran confessions. Having changed a few things can, of course, change one's theological category. Mutatis mutandis, the situation would be somewhat like my saying I am a Jew, because I believe in one God (although I've changed a few things), or that I am a Muslim, because I believe in submitting to God (although I've changed a few things), or that I am a Roman Catholic, because I celebrate Mass (although I've changed a few things).

Mr Komoszewski started private-messaging me. I did not contact him. He then shut off his PM to prevent any reply in that medium.

Mr Komoszewski dislikes any reservations about his peremptory and rationalistic apologetic approach or his vaguely silly manipulation of the message formats of this board. I wish him well as he sails through the aether, borne on, uh, rapturous wings of millennial song. I will encumber his happy flight no more. Requiescat (aut volet) in pace.

 

Bill,

Just a side note...

I just bought Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. I looked up "Brown" on amazon.com and this is what came up. As for Thayer's, I know others who have it and speak very well of it. Either way, it will be better that the helps I have already. Take care!!

Kevin

ps. This way I'll be able to study the Greek words in John 3:16
(I said this so I'd not be guilty of being off subject on this thread)

 

===

Kevin

Wrong Brown! My fault, should have given you more details! I question that the BDB Lexicon is what you want at this time. Though it is a standard reference work, it pretty much requires Hebrew. Course as it is keyed to Strong, you can use Strong to get the English transliteration and pronounciation. Thayer is OK but is lightweight and modest.

This is what you want if you want to do some serious lexical studies:

Greek=The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 vols, Colin Brown, editor, Regency publisher. about $120. TDNT is more complete, 10 vols, but requires Greek.

Hebrew=The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols, R. Laird Harris, ed, Moody Press, about $50 - or- if you like OT studies a lot get New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols, Van Gemeren, ed, Zondervon, about $150.

Blessings on you my friend,

 

Uh Oh!

Do you think I should try to return them? Will they be sufficent as well as helpful? I bought them at amazon.com like I touched on the last post. I definitely want the best, yet understandable to my level of knowledge, of reference materials.


Kevin

 

===

Kevin:

Let's test the value of BDB to you: If you have Strong then find "to know" in the Old Testament. It is "yada" number 3045. If you have BDB turn to the index in the back to #3045. There the word is in Hebrew, but you can see a page number next to the Hebrew word. Turn to that page.(393-395). You will see that about 1/3 of the text is in Hebrew, but you still can get the gist. You'll see about 5 definitions of 'yada' replete with texts supporting each definition. So, it is not useless to you, and as I say it is a standard work. But IF the choice is this OR the other, as you do not know Hebrew, one of the other two might be best for you being more practical.

As for Greek having two lexicons (or 10) is not a bad thing. Lexicons disagree among themselves, you know. Acquisition of the original languages or access to these creates a new set of problems. Experts do not always agree on word meaning or the significance of grammaticisms. Recently in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society there was a big debate between Grudem and Cervin on "kephale" (head as in 1 Cor 11:3) also TNDT and TNDNT contributors disagree over that noun. To win his argument, at least in my opinion, Grudem researched 2500 occasions of its use in secular and religious literature. I would keep Thayer and purchase COLIN Brown when you can. Consider buying through CBD or Baker Used. You need research tools if you are going to do grad studies , especially by DL.




Keep up the good work,

 

Well, I ordered the Colin Brown work for $95 plus shipping and the R. Laird Harris work for $30 plus shipping. So I figured I got a good deal. Thanks!

Kevin

 

Hi Kevin: Since you're wasting money (Carpathian for "buying MORE books") here are some suggestions. It's good to be aware of classical/Attic Greek as well as NT/koine, so here are a few things you might want to pick up as time and money permit:

Get the smallest version (there are 3) of the Liddell/Scott Greek lexicon--it will have all you need, at least for a while--maybe for good. It's a lot easier to use than the big one, and the intermediate isn't really much of an improvement and is bulkier.
[BTW, there is a new edition of Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich NT lexicon. I have it. It is a pretty pink color. That's all I can tell you about it. . ]

Kaegi's Greek grammar. This old standby has just been reprinted by Bolchazy-Carducci publishers in Wauconda, Illinois. The charts are brilliant and the explanations clear and concise. Big shots will push Smyth as indispensable, but it really isn't. If you can't get Kaegi--though that should not be a problem now--get Goodwin/Gulick.

It's good to have a decent textbook of Attic. There is a newish one by Mastronarde (Intro to Attic Greek? not sure of exact title) that is an absolute joy to use. Hansen or Hanson and Quinn is unwieldy, and Chase and Phillips is just plain dull. Avoid cutesy stuff like Athenaze or the Cambridge Greek course.

If you can afford only one of these, get Kaegi. I dunno what Lou Bolchazy is charging for it, but it's worth every penny.

Bill is far more learned in the Biblical languages than I am, so get wisdom from him

 

Thanks Unk!
I'll check out the references you mentioned.
Have a nice day


Kevin

 

===

I doubt it!

 

Hey Bill & Unk,

I did have an Introductory to Greek class, which did teach me enough to do word studies and such. My professor was a good teacher. He told us that we needed to be careful because some people learn enough Greek to do more harm than good. What he meant was that with my level of knowledge I need to be so careful that I interpret correctly. For instance, if someone uses a Strong's and doesn't research how that word is used in that particular text they could do it wrong. Strong's while an awesome book for it's exhaustive word lists will define like a dictionary with a word and it's possible meanings. I've heard preacher's even go so far as to pick and choose which meaning best supports what point they are making, and this is wrong! Some lesser lexicons also don't give enough distinction so as to properly make clear how a word is used in a particular verse. Plus, not knowing enough grammer in the Greek can also cause misinterpretation. That is why I want to be so choosey in what helps I get. I don't want to misinterpret Scripture. It's also important I learn more of the original languages.

Just a side thought. My professor told us that Greek has "evolved" dramaticly over the millenia. He said that Classical Greek has a whole lot of differences from Koine, and that people who speak modern Greek wouldn't understand either one.

Funny though, my friend Philip a "Messianic Jew" told me that Hebrew has changed little over time. He said that reading the Tanach as it was originally written is the equivalent of us reading the King James Bible. While somewhat archaic, it is still understandable. It's facinating how little Hebrew has changed. What other language that you know of has remained relatively
constant for so long?



Kevin

 

Don't get the tiny LSJ as a substitute for NT reference tools--it's for learning Attic.

You're right, Kevin, Greek has evolved (oh oh me say bad word) quite a bit. I had honey wagons o' fun teaching a bunch of Greek immigrant kids basic Attic at Torquemada U. First they bitched at being taught by their "racial inferior", as they put it. Charming. Then, about a month later, they realized that it wasn't identical to their demotiki (and a hick Peloponnesian version at that, according to a learned Greek of my acquaintance--personally, I wouldn't know) and that studying might just be an option worth exploring. They insisted loudly that Greek had not changed at all, but they didn't know old Greek well enough to get it when I showed them that even katharevousa wasn't identical--and they had some trouble reading katharevousa! So I showed them some Chaucer to prove my point. No go. Flunking the midterm proved to be the captatio benevolentiae that finally got their undivided attention.

Modern Hebrew is partly a reconstruction. Hebrew has much less of a continuous history as a spoken language beyond liturgical and 'academic' use, so the changes will necessarily be less than those of Greek from, say, Pindar to Papandreou.

There is a wonderful book by Atkinson called "The Greek Language" in a series of books on the history of individual languages put out by Faber in the '50s and '60s. If you enjoy history of language, once you have more Greek you might get a kick out of Atkinson. Sort of like MacNeil/McNeil's "Story of English" without the pictures.