The book of John

[mikedsjr]

Mitchell you said this

Yes indeed I have refuted and ripped apart your effort to turn the Bible into a tool of power and manipulation and rendered it useless for such a purpose by making it quite clear that God does not need you to speak for Him because He is quite capable of speaking for Himself. Thus all those who seek to claim the authority of God for themselves are revealed for the liars and manipulators they really are, for how can we accept that they really believe in God if they act like they have to take His place. And so I very much hope that I have demolished your foundation for doing such a thing by making it clear how people can tell the difference between that which is truly from God and that which has been crafted by men as a tool for power and manipulation.

Well, I think that we can clear issues up by seeing that we agree on some issue and disagree with others by going through a book. I'm not necessarily talking verse by verse. Just section by section and see what we agree with and try to do things more civilly. I want to slow things down and see where we have disagreement and where we have agreements. I want to use this to understand why you think the way you do and maybe you can see why i think the way i do.

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

**EDIT***

i started this too quickly. However i left the top section and verses. I removed the comments on the text until i have more time to be more proper.

[ChristianHeretic]

mike, didn't know if this was a private conversation b/w you and mitch, but I'd like to add my two cents if I can...

In researching the English translation of John, it was interesting for me to see how Tyndale (and Calvin in his brother-in-law's Geneva Bible) originally translated John's Prologue. The fact that the Prologue was obviously adjusted in all of our current bibles to a more orthodox version begs the question of why the need to do so?

1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
5 and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was Iohn.
7 The same cam as a witnes to beare witnes of the lyght that all men through him myght beleve.
8 He was not that lyght: but to beare witnes of the lyght.
9 That was a true lyght which lyghteth all men that come into the worlde.
10 He was in ye worlde and the worlde was made by him: and yet the worlde knewe him not.
11 He cam amonge his (awne) and his awne receaved him not.
12 But as meny as receaved him to them he gave power to be the sonnes of God in yt they beleved on his name:
13 which were borne not of bloude nor of the will of the flesshe nor yet of the will of man: but of God.
14 And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite.
15 Iohn bare witnes of him and cryed sayinge: This was he of whome I spake he that cometh after me was before me because he was yer then I.
16 And of his fulnes have all we receaved even (grace) for grace.
17 For the lawe was geven by Moses but grace and truthe came by Iesus Christ.
18 No ma hath sene God at eny tyme. The only begotte sonne which is in ye bosome of ye father he hath declared him.

[mitchellmckain]

Mike, we will probably agree on the over all gist of the passage, especially with regards to trinitarian doctrine. I think we can also see an excellent statement of the salvation by grace in this: "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." We are born again to new life, not by any right of blood, nor by any work of our own will or flesh, but by the intervention of God alone.

But where we disagree is that you would take this too far in contradiction of the rest of the Bible to say that our choice plays no role and that salvation is not a gift we accept but something that God does to us against our will. All throughout the Old Testament, over and over God says, "I set before you life and death, therefore choose life." It is God's will that we make a choice, so that what results is a relationship of love and not one of compulsion or control. But accepting a gift does not change it into wages earned and so we are not brought to God by our own will seeking Him out. Left to ourselves we would not seek Him at all. We only seek Him because He calls and we only have the free will to accept the gift because He has liberated us from the habits of our sin at that moment to that extent.

Now there is in this a rejection of determinism and a belief that free will has real substance, so that God's manipulations are all external and only determining to the extent that we lack free will. Thus the sinful man is easy to manipulate and control and there is no violation of his free will because he has already abandoned his free will to the habits of sin. But a man without sin or acting out of free will is not easily manipulated or controlled and what he will do is not something that God will exert His power to know -- for to do that would be to take that free will away and that is something that God would never do for it contradicts the very reason He has created everything.

But now there is the previous sentence, "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." Are we to interpret this to be a matter of cause or merit? Does the fact that these people believed in his name -- is that what gave them the right? Did these people in fact save themselves by believing? I think not. I think the point here is that their believing is simply a common manifestation of the fact that they have accepted the gift which has been offered and thus answered God's challenge by choosing life. I not only do not think that this is either cause or merit but I think that there are those who say they believe who have not in fact been reborn at all.

Let me put it another way. Christ died for all and God calls all men to rebirth, and the Bible is His message to all men, calling them all into a personal relationship with Jesus. But since being brought to that point where we can accept the gift that is offered is a work of God in us and not of men, this means that some who come are not actually brought to that point which I am speaking of by God, but are simply going through the motions for their own reasons. You can say that in a relative sort of way they came without being called. BUT, this does not mean that God does not love them or that God does not want them, but only that they are just not ready yet. The upshot is that we cannot judge who is saved and who is not. Only God can know this.

Now what I have explained is going to bother the pretend christians terribly because they will want guarantees that they have been accepted, but that is really a sign that they are seeking to earn their way into God's favor. Those who have truly accept God's grace have thrown themselves at the mercy of God and knowing that there is truly nothing of merit in them will live simply by their love for God and do not seek assurances as if what they do for God are earning some kind of wages.

[mikedsjr]

ChristianHeretic,

I don't mind your input in the thread. I haven't viewed what Tyndale has stated, but Calvin affirmed Christ as the Word of God in John. He writes in Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 13 - The Unity of the Divine Essence in....

6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction. I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood, “that there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence.”—Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.

Athanasius wrote in Against Arianism

15. But if on the other hand, while they acknowledge with us the name of ‘Son,’ from an unwillingness to be publicly and generally condemned, they deny that the Son is the proper offspring of the Father’s essence, on the ground that this must imply parts and divisions; what is this but to deny that He is very Son, and only in name to call Him Son at all? And is it not a grievous error, to have material thoughts about what is immaterial, and because of the weakness of their proper nature to deny what is natural and proper to the Father? It does but remain, that they should deny Him also, because they understand not how God is, and what the Father is, now that, foolish men, they measure by themselves the Offspring of the Father. And persons in such a state of mind as to consider that there cannot be a Son of God, demand our pity; but they must be interrogated and exposed for the chance of bringing them to their senses. If then, as you say, ‘the Son is from nothing,’ and ‘was not before His generation,’ He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, ‘This is My Beloved Son’ and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father. And as to this again, if it be other than the essence of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that be

So that is a very shallow argument on your part.

[ChristianHeretic]

mike, I understand the history of Orthodoxy has understood the "Word" to be identical to Jesus, my question was whether they were right. And significant in this study was the correct translation of the pronoun 'autos' in the Prologue. Were they correct that this pre-existent "Word" was identical to Jesus, and therefore a "he," or could it in fact have been an "it" like it is everywhere else in Scripture and in Tyndale and Calvin's actual translation of Scripture? Why do we believe that this pre-existent "Word" was identical to Jesus?

[Matt]

verse 14

[ChristianHeretic]

So how do you interpret vs. 14? Do you believe that Jesus, as the pre-existent Word was somehow transformed into flesh?

[Matt]

I think it means:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

[ChristianHeretic]

So if you are arguing that because the Word was a pre-existent Jesus that was somehow "made man," and this is why it must be a pre-existent Jesus because it somehow "became flesh and dwelt 'among us.'" My next question is how in fact did that Word actually "become flesh?" Given the references to Calvin and Athanasius above, what are your thoughts on their perspectives on this?

“When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or confusedly intermingled with flesh, but that he made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which he might dwell.”

“Whence they can be refuted who have ventured to say that the Lord was transformed into flesh and bones. For He did not say, ‘As ye see Me to be flesh and bone,’ but ‘as ye see Me to have,’ in order that it might not be thought that the Word Himself was changed into these things, but that He might be believed to have them after His resurrection as well as before His death….since the body in which the Word was is not coessential with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, while the Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh ,’…For the Son, being God, and Lord of glory, was in the Body which was ingloriously nailed and dishonoured; but the Body, while it suffered, being pierced on the tree, and water and blood flowed from its side, yet because it was a temple of the Word was filled full of the Godhead.”

Did this pre-existent Word reside in the flesh of the person we know as Jesus of Nazereth, or was it the Son of God that pre-existed and resided in the flesh of the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth even though John doesn't say this. Let's play name that heresy! If there is no longer an obligation based on John 1:14 to affirm that a pre-existent Jesus actually "became flesh," then why is it a requirement to acknowledge that this "Word" was a pre-existent Jesus in the first place?

The pre-existent Word, which John says "God was," as Calvin acknowledges, "made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which [the Word] might dwell." Or per Athanasius, "because [the 'Body' we know as Jesus of Nazareth] was a temple of the Word and was filled full of the Godhead." This sounds eerily similar to Paul:

What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."
-2 Corinthians 6:16 {NIV}

...or even John later on...

“You do not have His word <LOGOS> abiding in <EN> you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.”
-John 5:38 {NASB}

Jesus was not identical to the Word, even though He was a perfect represenation of it, the man we know as Jesus Christ was filled with the Word of God as your chosen Church Fathers affirm.

“He who does not love Me does not keep My words <LOGOS>; and the word <LOGOS> which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.”
-John 14:24 {NASB}

“I have given them your word <LOGOS> and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.”
-John 17:14 {NIV}

“Sanctify them by the truth; your word <LOGOS> is truth.”
-John 17:17 {NIV}