Posted on 06/15/2004 6:53:50 PM PDT by RnMomof7
GOL | | | ||
The "World" of John 3:16 Does Not Mean "All Men Without Exception" -
Whenever anyone challenges the confession of Gods particular, exclusive love for His elect by quoting John 3:16, we must regretfully conclude that he holds the doctrinal position set forth above and wishes to confess it publicly, in order thus to overthrow the Reformed doctrine of predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, effectual grace, and the preservation of saints (which is only an elaborate way of saying, salvation by grace alone the gospel). The word, world, in the gospel of John does not mean all men without exception. Proof: John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Did Christ by His death take away the sin of all men without exception? If He did, all men without exception shall be saved.This last text points out that the word, world, in the gospel of John does not always have the same meaning. In John 3:16, the world is loved by God, with a love that gives the Son of God for its sake; in John 17:9, the Son of God refuses to pray for the world. The saints must not come to an understanding of the world of John 3:16 by a quick assumption, but by careful interpretation of the passage in the light of the rest of Scripture. What then is the truth about the world of John 3:16? Loved by God with Divine, almighty, effectual, faithful, eternal love, the world is saved. All of it! All of them! Redeemed by the precious, worthy, powerful, effectual death of the Son of God, the world is saved. All of it! All of them! The salvation of all the persons included in the world of John 3:16 is due solely to the effectual love of God and the redeeming death of Christ for them; whereas the persons who perish were never loved by God, nor redeemed by Christ, that is, they are not part of the world of John 3:16. The world of John 3:16 (Greek: kosmos, from which comes our English word, cosmos, referring to our "orderly, harmonious, systematic universes) is the creation made by God in the beginning, now disordered by sin, with the elect from all nations, now by nature children of wrath even as the others, as the core of it. As regards its people, the world of John 3:16 is the new humanity in Jesus Christ, the last Adam (I Corinthians 15:45). John calls this new human race "the world" in order to show, and emphasize, that it is not from the Jewish people alone, but from all nations and peoples (Revelation 7:9). The people who make up the world of John 3:16 are all those, and those only, who will become believers (whosoever believeth"); and it is the elect who believe (Acts 13:48). This explanation of John 3:16 is not some strange, new interpretation dreamed up by latter-day hyper-Calvinists, but the explanation that has been given in the past by defenders of the Faith we call Reformed, that is, by those who confessed the sovereign grace of God in the salvation of sinners. This was the explanation given by Frances Turretin, Reformed theologian in Geneva (1623-1687): The love treated of in John 3:16. .. cannot be universal towards all and every one, but special towards a few... because the end of that love which God intends is the salvation of those whom He pursues with such love.. . If therefore God sent Christ for that end, that through Him the world might be saved, He must either have failed of His end, or the world must necessarily be saved in fact. But it is certain that not the whole world, but only those chosen out of the world are saved; therefore, to them properly has this love reference... Why then should not the world here be taken not universally for individuals, but indefinitely for anyone, Jews as well as Gentiles, without distinction of nation, language and condition. that He may be said to have loved the human race, inasmuch as He was unwilling to destroy it entirely but decreed to save some certain persons Out of it, not only from one people as before, but from all indiscriminately, although the effects of that love should not be extended to each individual, but only to some certain ones, viz, those chosen out of the world? (Theological Institutes)About the word, world, in Scripture, Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian (1837-1920) wrote: For if there is anything that is certain from a somewhat more attentive reading of Holy Scripture, and that may be held as firmly established, it is, really, the irrefutable fact, that the word, world, in Holy Scripture, means "all men" only as a very rare exception and almost always means something entirely different.Essentially the same is the interpretation of Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952): Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted that this verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. "God so loved the world." Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But "the entire human race" includes all mankind from Adam till the close of earths history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born. Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Savior came to the earth, lived here "having no hope and without God in the world," and therefore passed out into eternity of woe. If God "loved" them, where is the slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares "Who (God) in times past (from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom. 1:28). To Israel God said, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2). In view of these plain passages who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to the future . . . But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, "World means world. "True, but we have shown that "the world" does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that "the world" is used in a general way.. . Now the first thing to note in connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus, a man who believed that Gods mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that Gods love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to "regions beyond." In other words, this was Christs announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. "God so loved the world," then, signifies, Gods love is international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen the term "world" is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. . . the "world" in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of Gods people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where Gods love is mentioned limits it to His own people search and see! The objects of Gods love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christs love in John 13:1: "Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them. (The Sovereignty of God)We can only marvel that Reformed men and women are so soon removed from the truth of Gods sovereign, particular, electing love in Jesus Christ, which truth has not only been confessed "by the Reformers and Puritans" before them, but has also been confessed by the Reformed church herself in her Creed, the Canons of Dordt. Who hath bewitched them? As for us, we are determined, out of love for the truth, to oppose the lie of a love of God in Jesus Christ for all men without exception; to try to rescue those who have been taken captive by this doctrine; and to preach and testify, near and far, in season and out of season, a love of God for the world that saves the world, a death of the Son of God that redeemed the world, a purpose of God for the saving of sinners that is accomplished, and a salvation of enslaved sinners by the sovereign power of the grace of God alone for the comfort of every believer and the glory of God. This article was printed from Grace Online Library - www.graceonlinelibrary.org Please note that every attempt has been made to obtain the proper permission to use all of the material posted on our site. If you intend on reproducing this printed article, you may need to obtain the proper permission. |
I think it would be accurate to take your reply as a "yes."
If so, I disagree with the portions you use to support or justify that.
thanks again. and yes, I am a Christian.
I have to do this as an image, since FR disables the Greek characters.
(RM, is there any way we can get those allowed?)
Whoaaaa.... where are you getting that from? No one here is claiming any such thing. That is a strawman argument you are setting up.
I built it with the wood , hay and stubble that has been posted
I gotta admit... THAT was funny.
I know what the words mean. Did Adam's sin put the "whole world" (all of humanity) under the curse of death? Or just some people?
Did Yeshua, as the second Adam, succeed where the first Adam failed? If so, He is the covering and "life from the dead" for all mankind, though clearly all of mankind will not choose to accept His covering.
Why do you think you can save and keep yourself?
38They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. 40And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.
Who is doing the work there, man or God?
I don't think I can save and keep myself.
Again, do you think God loves you more than another?
Then, take my advice, 2 aspirins, and quit saying it.
The point has to do with whether "whole world" = "all men without exception."
I say that "whole world" does mean that. So does P-Marlowe. So does John Calvin.
No doubt YHWH, the Father, does this work and provides the means to redemption through His Son. I'm failing to see your point.
Stop it! I can't breathe!
We are the world...
For the record I am not going to take a position on this thread as to whether or not Calvin is correct when he states that world in John 3:16 means everyone without exception. I will note that it does appear that Calvin's position and Englesma's positions are not consistent with each other. That being said one would have to conclude that at least one of them is wrong. If Englesma believes that God does, in fact, have some kind of love for the non-elect then the title of this article is misleading. It does appear, however, that englesma is of the opinion that God loves only the elect and hates everyone else. Calvin seems to admit that God does love all mankind although he may have some kind of special love for the elect which he does not have with those who are not ultimately numbered among the elect.
BTW if God does have some love for all mankind, then God indeed must have loved Esau at some point. This would take the wind out of the sails of many of the arguments given by the more hard lined Calvinists. I would think the commentators who claim that the verse means that Jacob he loved and Esau he loved less would be more consistent if, in fact, God at some point did love Esau. Or perhaps God could be capable of loving and hating at the same time as suggested by Alamo Girl.
I don't think I have received an answer to my question to RnMom in post #186. Did I state your position correctly, mom?
Since I have inquired 3 times now on whether you have actually read Calvin's commentaries and you have chosen to be intentionally evasive, I'll invoke a little bit of court room etiquette and treat you as a hostile witness. I shouldn't have to treat a fellow brother this way and you shouldn't have to pretend like you are hiding things. I think it shameful on your part that you are so disrespectful to Christian brothers that you would act this way.
You, sir, are insulting my intelligence by presuming to think that I will fall for this evasion.
So, here are the rules of the Free Republic hostile witness: I will ask 3 times a question. When you refuse to answer, I will simply assume that I have the answer correct and move on. If you don't like it, then you are free to improve your behavior and not continue to treat Christians with such contempt.
Given this rule, I have now concluded that you have not read Calvin's commentaries, but are, yet again, just trying to pull citations without any understanding of what you are citing for the expressed purpose of painting your Calvinist Christian brothers as doctrinal fools. Were you a member of my church, I would have you in front of the elders for discipline for your continued attacks upon Christians.
Your brother,
Christian.
Better yet take it up with the religion moderator.
Your incessant personal attacks against my character are getting boorish and tiresome. You pretend to take the high road in correcting everyone else's "bad behavior" yet your own behavior on these threads since your entry into the forum on April 19 has been, IMO, appalling to say the least. You bait and then attack. And when anyone responds in kind you whine that the other person is guilty of "bad behavior". Quite frankly, I am tired of it. If you are looking for bad behavior on Free Republic, I'd suggest you grab a mirror.
Please do not post to me again.
Good bye.
I guess I took Englesma argument not as one who was in conflict with Calvin but arguing a finer point of Reformed theology with other Reformers. That is the special love God has for the elect is different then the love He has for the world. There are some Calvinists (as well as others) who do fail to understand that distinction and erroneously point to verses like John 3:16.
It does not appear that Calvin shared that sentiment (at least not when he did his commentary on John 3:16). Is Calvin's apparent position that Christ came to earth to reconcile the whole world a minority Calvinist position, a majority Calvinist position, or only an Arminian position?
Well, I've never seen anyone say that but there is a flip side to this view. That God loves each and everyone of us exactly as we are. The problem with this view is that it does not allow for the special love God has for His chosen people.
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.