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 God’s 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 universe’s) 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 earth’s 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 God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that God’s 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 Christ’s announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. "God so loved the world," then, signifies, God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s love is mentioned limits it to His own people — search and see! The objects of God’s love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ’s 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 God’s 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. |
||
Oh, ordinarily I do pass over it. The truth is that I've read any number of these Calvinist threads, and while they don't bother me, I also don't find the discussions of the minutae of your theology very interesting. But I do sometimes wonder about groups like the Calvinists (and they certainly aren't the only such group I've observed) who focus so dogmatically and pugnaciously on their particular interpretation of the bible-- do such groups ever stop to wonder how they're viewed by non-believers? That question comes to my mind simply because for many years I WAS a non-believer.
So, that's my question-- do you ever stop to think about the non-Christians?
For the record, I figure that unless and until God fills me in on the straight story, the endless wrangling among and between Christians on the fine points of theology is something that I can just ignore. If I need to know, it will be made clear to me.
In scripture God compelled Paul into his service, he also has reaped where he did not sew such as in the case of the centurian's servant and the sydonian greek woman. He was known to pre-ordain Cyrus the king to free the Jews, a hundred years or so before he even ruled, yet he forgave even Ahab who humbled himself before him.
God may directly intervene or he gathers faith where it has not been directly sewn...but where it flowers the Holy Spirit is there to nurture it.
My main conflict with Calvinism is that while God indeed has an underlying plan to destroy evil ans save the saints, there is a mechanistic quality to it that allows a view of God to flourish that he never acts tactically and transtemporally within everday events. Everything is set and providentially written in stone...God sits back and watches it all unfold, almost passive. It is almost an Aristotellian view of creation, in that everything is set in motion and God just watches!
I believe God acts dynamically and tactically within his strategic divine plan as well. Calvinism denies that God does so! It denies that God can do so in the unsaved as well. This is my main arguement against Calvinism!
There is a choice that each person makes somewhere in time, and God is aware of it. God is just but God's ways aren't our ways...as Job certainly found out.
ALL,
Please look at these verses, which demonstrate the use of the Greek word kosmos, within the Gospel of John:
Greek Word: Kovsmoß
Transliterated Word: kosmos
Book to Display: John
Verse Count: 57
Joh 1:9
There was the true light which, coming into the
world, enlightens every man.
[The word world, cannot mean "the elect. As to "every man," I will let it speak for itself.]
Joh 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made
through Him, and the world did not know Him.
[None of these uses could possibly mean "only the elect."]
Joh 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and
said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world!
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should
not perish, but have eternal life.
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 3:17
"For God did not send the Son into the world to
judge the world, but that the world should be
saved through Him.
[In dispute(?)-- see below.]
Joh 3:19
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into
the world, and men loved the darkness rather than
the light; for their deeds were evil.
[The word world, cannot mean "the elect."]
Joh 4:42
and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer
because of what you said that we believe, for we
have heard for ourselves and know that this One is
indeed the Savior of the world."
[This being merely the recorded speech of sinners (or new disciples) thus it carries little probative weight, for doctrinal purposes.]
Joh 6:14
When therefore the people saw the sign which He
had performed, they said, "This is of a truth the
Prophet who is to come into the world."
[Same as above, except that it cannot mean "the elect."]
Joh 6:33
"For the bread of God is that which comes down out
of heaven, and gives life to the world."
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 6:51
"I am the living bread that came down out of
heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live
forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the
life of the world is My flesh."
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 7:4
"For no one does anything in secret, when he
himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these
things, show Yourself to the world."
[See 6:14--above.]
Joh 7:7
"The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me
because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 8:12
Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am
the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not
walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."
[In light of 9:5 (see below) this could not mean "the elect."]
Joh 8:23
And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I
am from above; you are of this world, I am not of
this world.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 8:26
"I have many things to speak and to judge
concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and
the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to
the world."
[Here (as in 8:23, above) is talking to "the Pharisees." He, having already told them that THEY "are of the world," could not, now, mean "the elect."]
Joh 9:5
"While I am in the world, I am the light of the
world."
[The first use of world cannot mean "the elect." Therefore, the second use of world in the same sentence must not mean "the elect."]
Joh 9:39
And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this
world, that those who do not see may see; and
that those who see may become blind."
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 10:36
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and
sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,'
because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 11:9
Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the
day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not
stumble, because he sees the light of this world.
[As in the many other verses in John, Yeshua is "the light of THIS world." In this verse, also, as in them, the word world must not mean "the elect."]
Joh 11:27
She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that
You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who
comes into the world."
[See 6:14--above.]
Joh 12:19
The Pharisees therefore said to one another, "You
see that you are not doing any good; look, the
world has gone after Him."
[See 6:14--above.]
Joh 12:25
"He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his
life in this world shall keep it to life eternal.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 12:31
"Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of
this world shall be cast out.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 12:46
"I have come as light into the world, that everyone
who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 12:47
"And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not
keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to
judge the world, but to save the world.
[Here, Yeshua is talking to those who do "not keep" "My sayings." Thus, in this verse, the word world does not mean "the elect."]
Joh 13:1
Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus
knowing that His hour had come that He should
depart out of this world to the Father, having loved
His own who were in the world, He loved them to
the end.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 14:17
that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot
receive, because it does not behold Him or know
Him, but you know Him because He abides with you,
and will be in you.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 14:19
"After a little while the world will behold Me no
more; but you will behold Me; because I live, you
shall live also.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 14:22
Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then
has happened that You are going to disclose
Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 14:27
"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not
as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your
heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 14:30
"I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of
the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 14:31
but that the world may know that I love the Father,
and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so
I do. Arise, let us go from here.
[The word world, almost certainly does not mean "the elect."]
Joh 15:18
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated
Me before it hated you.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 15:19
"If you were of the world, the world would love its
own; but because you are not of the world, but I
chose you out of the world, therefore the world
hates you.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 16:8
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world
concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment;
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 16:11
and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this
world has been judged.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 16:20
"Truly, truly, I say to you, that you will weep and
lament, but the world will rejoice; you will be
sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned to joy.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 16:21
"Whenever a woman is in travail she has sorrow,
because her hour has come; but when she gives
birth to the child, she remembers the anguish no
more, for joy that a child has been born into the
world.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 16:28
"I came forth from the Father, and have come into
the world; I am leaving the world again, and going
to the Father."
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 16:33
"These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you
may have peace. In the world you have tribulation,
but take courage; I have overcome the world."
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:5
"And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself,
Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before
the world was.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:6
"I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou
gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and
Thou gavest them to Me, and they have kept Thy
word.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:9
"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the
world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for
they are Thine;
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:11
"And I am no more in the world; and yet they
themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee.
Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name
which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one,
even as We are.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:13
"But now I come to Thee; and these things I speak
in the world, that they may have My joy made full in
themselves.
[The word world, is highly unlikely to mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:14
"I have given them Thy word; and the world has
hated them, because they are not of the world,
even as I am not of the world.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:15
"I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world,
but to keep them from the evil one.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:16
"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the
world.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:18
"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have
sent them into the world.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:21
that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art
in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us;
that the world may believe that Thou didst send
Me.
[Since ALL of the previous uses of world in this prayer could not have meant "the elect," it is very unlikely that this particular usage does so.]
Joh 17:23
I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be
perfected in unity, that the world may know that
Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as
Thou didst love Me.
[Same as the above. Also, see the two following verses, in the same prayer.]
Joh 17:24
"Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast
given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they
may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me;
for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the
world.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 17:25
"O righteous Father, although the world has not
known Thee, yet I have known Thee; and these
have known that Thou didst send Me;
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 18:20
Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the
world; I always taught in synagogues, and in the
temple, where all the Jews come together; and I
spoke nothing in secret.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world.
If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants
would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to
the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this
realm."
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
Joh 18:37
Pilate therefore said to Him, "So You are a king?"
Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a
king. For this I have been born, and for this I have
come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.
Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
[Again, since the immediately previous verse used the word world TWICE, in a way which could not possibly mean "the elect," it is highly unlikely thjat it carries that meaning, in this verse.]
Joh 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus
did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose
that even the world itself would not contain the
books which were written.
[The word world, cannot possibly mean "the elect."]
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/freqdisp.cgi?book=joh&number=2889&count=57&version=nas
Here are the verses in the Gospel of John, which appear to be in dispute, regarding the meaning of the word world.
Joh 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and
said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world!
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should
not perish, but have eternal life.
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 3:17
"For God did not send the Son into the world to
judge the world, but that the world should be
saved through Him.
[In dispute(?)-- see below.]
"For the bread of God is that which comes down out
of heaven, and gives life to the world."
[In dispute-- see below.]
Joh 6:51
"I am the living bread that came down out of
heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live
forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the
life of the world is My flesh."
[In dispute-- see below.]
Based upon the fact that the word world does not mean "only the elect," in all of the other verses, (and other passages not cited here) it is my strongly held personal opinion that it does not mean "the elect," in these five verses.
DG
This question is also typical of GeRPiLs. It is the game of "Now I have Got You, You ...." You imagine that someone is reluctant to answer a certain loaded question (Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer Yes or No, ONLY.) Then, when the "tuyo" answers anything except the divinely approved answer, he is labelled a heretic, apostate, universalist, etc.
See DG I do not play games.
I think that you do. See above.
If someone wants to know what I believe I am not ashamed of it, I do not hide or deflect or play games.
Yeah, right. No games here.
DG
As a disinterested observer, it appears to me that if one were a Calvinist, that they might want to consult John Calvin to see what he says on the subject. From my first reading of his commentaries, it appears that John Calvin may be at odds with Englesma and those who agree with Englesma that "World" means something other than the WHOLE WORLD or ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
But of course I am speaking now as a disinterested observer. Let's see what Calvin says and see if there are any real calvinists out there:
That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.
It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that John Calvin is perfectly content with the interpretation that when John 3:16 says the world, it means the world i.e, all men without exception.
Of course, I'm open to anyone disabusing me of this impression. After all I am neither a Calvinist nor an Engelsmaist. I am but a confused sojourner passing through this strange land and puzzled at this time as to the correct Calvinist position on this subject. Its all so confusing.
Total non-sequitor, given the rest of your post. Marlowe's Phillip Johnson quote is the opinion of one man, who may or may not have entirely pure motives.
The term "hyper-Calvinist" is being thrown about much too frequently here, and is probably more for the hope of baiting and causing bannings or suspension amongst the GRPL, by inciting and inflaming passions. I refuse to participate.
Call me what you want, your word doesn't make it so.
When I offer up an opinion, it is just that; an opinion. For what it is worth, I do not consider you to be a hyper-Calvinist. Furthermore, I have long stated that my disagreements are primarily with hyper-Calvinism.
Awesome catch, P-M.
Maybe we should make John Calvin an honorary KOETT?
With a line that that, it's really tempting.
We could make him KOETT (Geneva Branch)
As for me, I choose the path of the apostle John and of the church of Philadelphia and of Mary:
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. – Luke 10:38-42
You have presented a ton of Scriptures to prove that God hates not only the evil thought or deed but the man who commits it. That is not a point that I disputed – ever. Rather, I asserted that He loves everyone – even His enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and that love and hate are not mutually exclusive (Matthew 22:36-40 v Luke 14:26).
We don’t earn everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2) – it is our state of being because of the Fall (Genesis 3). Likewise, we cannot earn mercy – it is a gift of God. (Romans 9). So rather than speaking smugly about being elected, we ought to humbly be thanking God for His mercy.
Moreover, it is not enough to define or defend a pure doctrine. The whole effort is meaningless without love.
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Revelation 2:1-7
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. – Revelation 3:7-13
So perhaps hypercalvinists are really Engelsmaists?
He he! Awesome observation P-Marlowe! Which puts Calvin where? sort of a little left of pre-destination? He sorta kinda wants to go there but scripture itself keeps him from fully engaging in it...at least where John 3:16 is concerned anyway.
{!}
Ah, how refreshing is the light to expose the dark secrets of the heart? I have finally figured it out. Your misguided attempt to label the Calvinists here as hyper is nothing more than the visible manifestation of the hurt feelings that you have that you were snubbed by the Calvinists here.
You do remember the embarrassment that you caused yourself by second source citations? It would seem to me that it would be better to let go, instead of trying to get the Calvinists. Besides, you aren't even barking up the right tree here. I'll explain.
Philip Johnson's Chart (can I trust you that this is not in error?):
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
|
Now, what is interesting here is that this thread is about John 3:16 and the sacrificial love of the Father for those who believe in Him. We read: "For God... gave His only begotten Son." But, this is not the definition of common grace at all. Common grace does not address the sacrificial love of God for those whom He redeems. That is special grace.
You really need to learn your definitions. This is what happens when you use as your source of information a guy who has an axe to grind with Calvinists and himself makes use of second source definitions. He has actually been quite discredited over his use of second sources as it has called into question his direct knowledge of the works he cites. You have the same problem, btw, as revealed again by your misunderstand of common and special grace.
Now, if you will put away your axe, you will figure out that assigning special sacrificial grace to John 3:16 no more makes one a hyper-Calvinist any more than thoughtful Arminians who also assign sacrificial grace to John 3:16. The article actually reveals that this is an historic Calvinist interpretation of this verse. Did you actually read that portion of the article? Or did you rush to hoist a bait and stitch game?
So, if I haven't lost you yet, this article reveals nothing about whether David J. Engelsma or any Calvinist is a "hyper-Calvinist." I do know the answer, btw, of whether Engelsma is a hyper-Calvinist. You see, I directly read the doctrine of the men in question. I don't rely on second source hacks.
Now, if that distasteful business is out of the way and you don't have a seething rage at me, I'll actually show you something about this verse which actually can be made to work in your favor against the Calvinists. Hint, it isn't arguing over the proper English translation of kosmos. You will lose every time. There is not a Greek expert that won't concede that kosmos is not always used to mean all men without any exception.
Nobody can dispute that this verse is speaking about the sacrificial love of the Father for His creation. To clear this confusion up, what is the goal of the Father's love in this verse: so that believers should not perish.
This is why DoorGunner's post is amusing. You will actually demonstrate that you really don't know a thing about Greek. All you will do is demonstrate that the Cavinist is right: all doesn't always mean all; the world doesn't always mean every single member of the human race.
But, notice the particular logical order in this verse. God's love to save is extended to believers. This should give you exactly the ammo you are looking for. The Father is making a sacrificial love for people that He already sees to be believers.
I can't make it any more plain than that.
Your brother,
Christian.
Mr. Marlowe, have you actually read the work of Calvin where this is sourced or is this another famous second source citation?
Your brother,
Christian.
I just knew Calvin was really an Arminian; or should that be Arminius was a Calvinist since Calvin predated Arminius.
Esau sold his birthright for porridge, he regarded it so lightly. When you realize what that birthright was, you understand the scriptures concerning Esau. That's why God didn't like him, yet He told the Jews that they were to have regard for Esau, he was their brother. Jacob went out to meet Esau, carrying gifts, as the Lord instructed.
Indeed, Esau traded his birthright for food (Genesis 25). God chose Jacob for His mercy before either child was born (Romans 9). Then again, God sees the future as if it were already past (Psalms 90:4) - so He already knew Esau and Jacob.
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.