Changes to John 3:16

[Vort]

Traveler, respectfully, I would have to disagree. The words I saw added "that whosoever believeth in Him AND KEEPS HIS COMMANDMENTS..." change the core teaching of that verse.

How so? To believe in Christ MEANS to keep his commandments. If you don't keep his commandments, you don't believe in him. The wording seems only to make explicit what any Christian would understand as implicit, anyway.

[BenRaines]

I don't understand all the hoopla over it. It is not part of our Standard Works. I have often heard a scripture rephrased to make a point, make it more modern or understandable in our time.

I know that the scriptures were not changed. I learned John 3:16 as a young Baptist boy. It reads the same in my LDS? scriptures today.

Ben Raines

[Traveler]

I don't understand all the hoopla over it. It is not part of our Standard Works. I have often heard a scripture rephrased to make a point, make it more modern or understandable in our time.

I know that the scriptures were not changed. I learned John 3:16 as a young Baptist boy. It reads the same in my LDS? scriptures today.

Ben Raines

Ben: I do not understand the question as well but I am looking at it differently. Even if this partilcular scirpture were to have such words - I do not see that it changes the doctrine that John teaches - especially if we understand all his words and not try to take someting "out of context" and isolate it.

I believe if we are allowed to "take apart" any bodies words we can make it appear as thought they believed the exact opposit of what they really believed.

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

I may be wrong......but I think this is a grace vs. works issue as John 3:16 is a major foundational verse for the* saved by grace belief.

But I agree with you Traveler. I feel like I could go to the bible and pull so many scriptures that support keeping the commandments. But as we all know, we are criticized because we believe that obedience is part of salvation. So and so and so and so....

[BenRaines]

I too do not understand how anyone can believe that all they have to do is "believe" and they will be saved. What does "believe" entail? I believe with all my heart. Is that all I have to do? Do my actions demonstrate, manifest, show by belief? I think so.

It was what Christ did that allows us salvation. It is what we do, believe, isn't believing an action? It is what we do to believe that allows us to receive that salvation.

Ben Raines

[ryanh]

I can clearly see how those with differing understandings and background would think that the suggested wording does change the meaning.

However, one of the clearest (to me) indications in the New Testament that the added wording to 3:16 wouldn't change it's true and intended meaning is the parable of the 10 virgins.

There will be many that clearly know of the Lord (all 10 gathered in preparation for his coming), who think they will be joined with Him (their sins Atoned for through the at-one-ment covenant), but who will not be allowed to enter the marriage chamber (the five foolish), because it was not until the last minute that they rushed off to do the work of filling their lamps. The time to make the effort to prepare for the marriage is now, not when the Bridegroom comes. Now is the time to serve Him by keeping his commandments so that He will know us as His sheep, and choose to intercede between us and justice, not let us be exposed to that which we earned through our own fallible natures.

[Vort]

I too do not understand how anyone can believe that all they have to do is "believe" and they will be saved. What does "believe" entail? I believe with all my heart. Is that all I have to do? Do my actions demonstrate, manifest, show by belief? I think so.

It was what Christ did that allows us salvation. It is what we do, believe, isn't believing an action? It is what we do to believe that allows us to receive that salvation.

I think many "Christians" take John 3:16 as a sort of Christian Shahada, but moreso. It appears that many such people believe that simply stating "Jesus is my Savior!", or perhaps believing it deeply in one's heart, is all that is necessary to gain salvation.

This Satanic lie is, of course, explicitly condemned in the scriptures, as in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

The blunt fact is that most Christians really don't know the Bible at all, beyond what their preachers tell them. They have rarely done any real study of the Bible, so what they know is pretty much what their preachers tell them. We often lament the sad state of Biblical (and generally scriptural) knowledge among the Saints, but in my experience it's actually significantly higher among Latter-day Saints than any other sect or denomination with which I have experience.

[beefche]

I think many "Christians" take John 3:16 as a sort of Christian Shahada, but moreso. It appears that many such people believe that simply stating "Jesus is my Savior!", or perhaps believing it deeply in one's heart, is all that is necessary to gain salvation.

This Satanic lie is, of course, explicitly condemned in the scriptures, as in Matthew 7:21-23:

In defense of my non-LDS Christian friends, most do believe in works--they just don't express it that way. My bff is a Nazarene--very faithful. We've had discussions about how to simply state that you are a Christian isn't sufficient--one has to show by example that one is following Jesus. We both acknowledge that to say you are a Christian--belief in Jesus--and then do whatever you want isn't the action of a real Christian.

I think anyone who believes in Jesus and the Bible do believe they must live a Christian life--they just don't express it in the same way as LDS do.

[Vort]

In defense of my non-LDS Christian friends, most do believe in works--they just don't express it that way.

Which is fine. I did not intend to attack anyone, least of all your non-LDS Christian friends. My reference was mainly to those "Christians" who condemn Latter-day Saints for "rejecting Christ's grace" because we point out the necessity of obeying Jesus. They are victims of, and participants in, the Satanic lie of which I spoke.

[ryanh]

In defense of my non-LDS Christian friends, most do believe in works--they just don't express it that way. My bff is a Nazarene--very faithful. We've had discussions about how to simply state that you are a Christian isn't sufficient--one has to show by example that one is following Jesus. We both acknowledge that to say you are a Christian--belief in Jesus--and then do whatever you want isn't the action of a real Christian.

In the same line of thought, but in reverse, many non-LDS misunderstand what LDS mean when referring to works. I can't help but think the percieved differences between many sects is much larger than reality simply because of semantics.

So many think LDS thoughts regarding "works" it is the antecedent to the Atonement, when in reality it is not. No, doctrine teaches we CANNOT save ourselves. It is an impossibility, and we are wholly dependent on the Savior. They miss that our beliefs are the middle ground - that we rely wholly upon the Savior, but believe we must qualify, as commanded, through obedience.

[ryanh]

Which is fine. I did not intend to attack anyone, least of all your non-LDS Christian friends. My reference was mainly to those "Christians" who condemn Latter-day Saints for "rejecting Christ's grace" because we point out the necessity of obeying Jesus. They are victims of, and participants in, the Satanic lie of which I spoke.

I spent 1/2 of my mission in the south. Saw plenty of that 'lulling into false security' going on down there.

[beefche]

I was thinking about this "works" thing recently. I was thinking about how many LDS don't understand it themselves--we try so hard to be perfect, be the Peter Priesthood or Molly Mormon, that we don't rely on Jesus enough.

I recently found myself doing this. I was trying to do something on my own--not realizing I was relying on ME and not on Christ. I felt that I had to do #1, #2 and #3 in order to show my obedience and "goodness" and intent. When in reality, I have to rely on Christ and THEN show my obedience. Does that make sense?

[prisonchaplain]

I think many "Christians" take John 3:16 as a sort of Christian Shahada,

This is true. I've often called the shahada "the John 3:16 of the Old Testament."

but moreso. It appears that many such people believe that simply stating "Jesus is my Savior!", or perhaps believing it deeply in one's heart, is all that is necessary to gain salvation.

This Satanic lie is, of course, explicitly condemned in the scriptures, as in Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Yes and no. Most evangelical Christians (John 3:16 is our verse--you don't see Catholics or mainline churches using it much) salvation (= conversion) comes only through faith in Christ, by grace. HOWEVER, most of us also understand, even intuitively, that we cannot claim Christ, live for the Devil, and expect to go to heaven. So, your implication is a bit overdrawn here, imho.

The blunt fact is that most Christians really don't know the Bible at all, beyond what their preachers tell them.

Vort, my friend, is this not rather overstated? We could all do with more quanity and quality Bible study. No doubt. But, tell some Catholics that the evangelicals they know don't study or know their Bibles, and they will look at you with bewilderment. We were studying, highlighting and memorizing our Bibles when they still OFFICIALLY self it to the institutional church to determine doctrine. And I don't mean that as an insult to Catholics. It's just that they viewed the Church as the source of doctrine and interpretation. The laity were to obey, live righteously, and pray. If everyone read and studied the Bible for themselves what might become of us? We'd end up like the evangelicals!

They have rarely done any real study of the Bible, so what they know is pretty much what their preachers tell them. We often lament the sad state of Biblical (and generally scriptural) knowledge among the Saints, but in my experience it's actually significantly higher among Latter-day Saints than any other sect or denomination with which I have experience.

There no way to measure this. LDS would overall certainly do better on an exam that was based on the church manuals. However, what if it was a game of Bible trivia? Might depend on the church, the ward, the geography, To be blunt, I would not find such an exercise very useful. Again, we could all use more Bible, but arguing over which group has the better overall study habits? What's the point?

[BenRaines]

Prison Chaplain. I thought I would just share some insights to our course of study as youth and then as adults.

As LDS youth, those in high school, two years of the four in high school are dedicated to studying the Holy Bible. One year OT and next year NT. That is usually five days a week. On Sunday the Sunday School for these same youth is two years of additional study of OT and NT. As adults we study specifically the OT and NT in Sunday School two out of four years and then return to study it again. This on top of our own personal study of all we consider scripture.

Just thought I would share how we study the Bible. It is not a secondary source to us but a companion source of scripture.

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

Ben, I knew some about the seminary, and my guess is that the most active LDS would do very well in a game of Bible Trivia--as would the most active evangelicals. While our curriculum is less structured (in that different churches may choose different series, including ones published outside the denomination), our most active members attend:

1. Sunday School

2. Sunday's main service

3. Sunday night service (usually more meaty teachings, since it's the most faithful who come)

4. Small Groups (meet in homes to study the Bible and pray for each other)--meet throughout the week.

5. Wednesday Family Night: Kids do scouting or similar children's program, youth meet together, and adults do a Bible Study.

6. Various prayer meetings throughout the week

Now, 60% of LDS are inactive, and the attendance at evangelical main Sunday services is double that of any other. So, less active members are less knowledgeable. We've got self-trained Bible scholars in our churches, and we have long-time members that would still need an index to find the Book of Hezekiah (before they realized it doesn't exist!!!).

I know Vort was reacting to ignorant criticism, but when I read the post--my first today--well, he painted with a mighty broad brush, imho.

[Vort]

This is true. I've often called the shahada "the John 3:16 of the Old Testament."

You mean "shibboleth"? The Shahada is the Muslim declaration of faith.

Yes and no. Most evangelical Christians (John 3:16 is our verse--you don't see Catholics or mainline churches using it much) salvation (= conversion) comes only through faith in Christ, by grace. HOWEVER, most of us also understand, even intuitively, that we cannot claim Christ, live for the Devil, and expect to go to heaven. So, your implication is a bit overdrawn here, imho.

I specifically did not have you in mind, PC. You and those like you might have a different understanding of John 3:16 from Latter-day Saints, but I daresay you don't think it means that saying, "Lord, I believe!" then absolves you from culpability for anything you choose to do from that moment onward. And I daresay you are not among the group of "Christians" that condemns Latter-day Saints specifically because we "deny salvation by grace".

My words reflect my view of a small, unpleasantly vocal group of those who call themselves "Christian", and a group of which I do not believe you to be a part.

Vort, my friend, is this not rather overstated? We could all do with more quanity and quality Bible study. No doubt. But, tell some Catholics that the evangelicals they know don't study or know their Bibles, and they will look at you with bewilderment. We were studying, highlighting and memorizing our Bibles when they still OFFICIALLY self it to the institutional church to determine doctrine. And I don't mean that as an insult to Catholics. It's just that they viewed the Church as the source of doctrine and interpretation. The laity were to obey, live righteously, and pray. If everyone read and studied the Bible for themselves what might become of us? We'd end up like the evangelicals!

I did not mean this as an insult, just as my personal observation. I have known many Christians whose Biblical knowledge certainly exceeded my own by a wide margin (even if I might quibble with their interpretations). But in my experience, and as a general rule, most Christians I've known have either never read the Bible or else have only read it once or twice in carefully guided study situations. They do not "know" the scriptures in any deep sense. I stand by my assessment that the "average" Latter-day Saint, if there is such a thing, has more knowledge about his scriptures (including the Bible) than the "average" non-LDS Christian (again, if there is such a thing). I can't prove it, of course, but that is my sense based on my experience.

There no way to measure this. LDS would overall certainly do better on an exam that was based on the church manuals. However, what if it was a game of Bible trivia? Might depend on the church, the ward, the geography, To be blunt, I would not find such an exercise very useful. Again, we could all use more Bible, but arguing over which group has the better overall study habits? What's the point?

Again, it was just a private observation that I believe to be true. It's relevant because the topic is about people's understanding of John 3:16, and in my experience most non-LDS Christians have even less exposure to the larger context of scripture than the typical Latter-day Saint. So on that basis, I question whether most of them are doing anything other than parroting what they learned in their catechism or other instruction. (Again: Not to say that Latter-day Saints don't do the same thing, but my supposition is that the typical Latter-day Saint would be in a somewhat better position to justify his/her ideas from scripture than the typical non-LDS Christian.)

Given that you agree (at least I think you agree) that the "just-confess-Jesus-and-all-your-sins-past-present-and-future-are-permanently-done-away-with-no-matter-what" doctrine is not only false, but unsubstantiated from Biblical teachings, I suspect you agree with my observation at least insofar as it applies to that subset of Christians -- since at least some Latter-day Saints will be able to substantiate their beliefs from scripture, while no believer of the other doctrine will be able to do so (since it cannot be done, since it's patently false and anti-Biblical).

Honestly, I intended no slight to you or your congregation. My apologies if it sounded otherwise.

[prisonchaplain]

You mean "shibboleth"? The Shahada is the Muslim declaration of faith.

I mispoke...but no, I mean the schema--which is Deut. 6:4. If you said shahada, then I get mixed up. But, in a sense, you were right anyway.

I specifically did not have you in mind, PC. You and those like you might have a different understanding of John 3:16 from Latter-day Saints, but I daresay you don't think it means that saying, "Lord, I believe!" then absolves you from culpability for anything you choose to do from that moment onward. And I daresay you are not among the group of "Christians" that condemns Latter-day Saints specifically because we "deny salvation by grace".

IMHO, those who really believe John 3:16 is a magical mantra that will wash away all intentional sins, including those never truly repented of, will indeed face a horrific judgment day. And, on that day, they will realize they had only deceived themselves.

My words reflect my view of a small, unpleasantly vocal group of those who call themselves "Christian", and a group of which I do not believe you to be a part.

Just a humble suggestion then...perhaps you should use "Anti" or "John 3:16 thumpers" since they don't use much else of the Bible. That broad term "Christian" is bound to be misunderstood. Tis why I was so surprised.

I did not mean this as an insult, just as my personal observation. I have known many Christians whose Biblical knowledge certainly exceeded my own by a wide margin (even if I might quibble with their interpretations). But in my experience, and as a general rule, most Christians I've known have either never read the Bible or else have only read it once or twice in carefully guided study situations. They do not "know" the scriptures in any deep sense. I stand by my assessment that the "average" Latter-day Saint, if there is such a thing, has more knowledge about his scriptures (including the Bible) than the "average" non-LDS Christian (again, if there is such a thing). I can't prove it, of course, but that is my sense based on my experience.

Well, all I can do is be responsible for me, the people I teach, and for my family. And, it is true, that in a broad sense, evangelicalism has become so good at attracting seekers, that the regular members have often been left with a dearth of "meat" teachings. The focus is so strong on our milk-drinkers, that those who ought to be getting meat are instead drafted to teach milk to the new comers. A lot of dairy around, and not enough cattle.

Given that you agree (at least I think you agree) that the "just-confess-Jesus-and-all-your-sins-past-present-and-future-are-permanently-done-away-with-no-matter-what" doctrine is not only false, but unsubstantiated from Biblical teachings, I suspect you agree with my observation at least insofar as it applies to that subset of Christians -- since at least some Latter-day Saints will be able to substantiate their beliefs from scripture, while no believer of the other doctrine will be able to do so (since it cannot be done, since it's patently false and anti-Biblical).

The command to confess our sins so that God will forgive is written first to Christians...so yes, I agree. We must live for Christ, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Jesus is our friend, but God is still God.

Honestly, I intended no slight to you or your congregation. My apologies if it sounded otherwise.

Just wait til my congregation gets out of jail......J/K!

[BenRaines]

What no LOL button on this tread. Very funny PC. Your congregation getting out of jail.

Ben Raines

[Vort]

Just a humble suggestion then...perhaps you should use "Anti" or "John 3:16 thumpers" since they don't use much else of the Bible. That broad term "Christian" is bound to be misunderstood. Tis why I was so surprised.

To clarify: I said "many Christians" when referring to John 3:16. I did not have you in mind, or even "most Christians", but I did mean "many".

The later comment (about how the "average" Latter-day Saint knows the scriptures better than the "average" non-LDS Christian) was directed to "most Christians". But that "most" includes a whole lot more than just the Evangelicals, who as far as I know do not constitute the bulk of larger Christianity and who in any case are not specifically who I had in mind. In fact, I do not presently have any close Evangelist friends, so I can't really make a determination about what I think the "average" Evangelist Christian knows about the Bible.

Just wait til my congregation gets out of jail......J/K!

Oh, that's just great. Now I'm going to get an Evangelist kneecapping.

Do you do healings, as well?

[Palerider]

One day for church....6 days for fun...odds on going to heaven...6-1.

[prisonchaplain]

To clarify: I said "many Christians" when referring to John 3:16. I did not have you in mind, or even "most Christians", but I did mean "many".

You might even be largely correct...I just don't want to hear it.

In fact, I do not presently have any close Evangelist friends,

Okay, now...that hurts. I've been telling people my best buddy, Vort, is LDS...

Oh, that's just great. Now I'm going to get an Evangelist kneecapping.

Do you do healings, as well?

They shall be bit by snakes and not be hurt, drink poison and not die. Brother, if yous gots the Holy Ghost, you won't need my healing oil!

[Vort]

In fact, I do not presently have any close Evangelist friends,

Okay, now...that hurts. I've been telling people my best buddy, Vort, is LDS...

Well, of course, I meant no one besides you. Obviously.

They shall be bit by snakes and not be hurt, drink poison and not die. Brother, if yous gots the Holy Ghost, you won't need my healing oil!

Yes, so long as they poison me or throw snakes at me. No kneecapping allowed!

[Dravin]

Yes, so long as they poison me or throw snakes at me. No kneecapping allowed!

What about lead poisoning of the airborne persuasion?

[lattelady]

Traveler,

"Is it possible to believe in someone you do not really know at all?" I hope I worded that correctly; that's the question you had for me. On a human level, perhaps it'd be impossible to "believe" in, or trust someone that you don't know at all. Trust is earned and built through relationship over time.

With God, there is that spiritual element that I cannot explain, but it is as real as the chair I'm sitting in right now as I type this. There is a verse from the Bible that I love that explains the truth that I'm talking about: I believe in someone that I've never laid eyes on. Not only do I believe in Him, I love Him, ADORE Him. And all I knew at the beginning of my believing was that this Someone loved me so much that He died for my sins to be washed away; and that if I believed in Him and what He'd done for me, I would live with Him forever! The REST of my life has been an amazing process of getting to know more and more and more about the amazing God that He is.

1 Peter 1:8 "Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you BELIEVE in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

I LOVE that verse. Can I believe in someone that I don't really even know? I believed in the simplicity of what I knew of God at the time, and that was the start of an amazing relationship that is growing all the time. If I didn't answer your question, tell me, and I'll try to do better.

[Traveler]

The point is - Those that will keep his commandments know him. Those that do not keep his commandments use his name in vein because it is impossible and a lie for anyone to say in truth that they know or love G-d that cannot keep his commandments.

Personally I would never encourage or give any hint to anyone that there is nothing gained by keeping the commandments. And to be honest I really do not care if it is really necessary or not - I will keep the commandments regardless and if anyone asks - I will tell them to keep the commandments.

I am not encouraged at all by those that diminish in any way keeping the commandments.

The Traveler

Edited October 23, 2009 by Traveler