The "World" of John 3:16 Does Not Mean "All Men Without Exception

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=277 ^ | 6/15/04 | David J. Engelsma

[RnMomof7]

GOL | |
	The "World" of John 3:16 Does Not Mean "All Men Without Exception" - David J. Engelsma It is now common among Reformed people that, when one confesses God’s election of some persons to salvation, God’s particular love for the elect, and God’s exclusive desire to save the elect, his confession is immediately contested by an appeal to John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Indeed, this is almost the rule. The one who thus appeals to John 3:16 intends to assert that God loves all men without exception and that God desires to save all men without exception. The basic assumption underlying this appeal to John 3:16, as an argument against election, is that the word, world, in John 3:16 means ‘all men without exception. We do here announce, declare, and proclaim that this assumption is false. It is unbiblical. It commits one to a teaching that deviates from the gospel, fundamentally. The word, world, in John 3:16 does not mean ‘all men without exception.’ We plead with our Reformed brothers and sisters who insist on understanding "world" in John 3:16 as ‘all men without exception’ and on using this text against the confession of God’s particular love for the elect to face up to the doctrinal position that they are taking. This, now, is their position: God loves all men without exception, with a love that gives His only begotten Son for their salvation, that is, with the (saving) love that desires their salvation from sin and their eternal life in heaven. God gave His only begotten Son for all men without exception, that is, Jesus died for all men without exception. Nevertheless, many people whom God loves, whom God desires to save, and for whom Jesus died perish in hell, unsaved. Therefore, 1) many persons are separated from the love of God; 2) God’s desire to save is frustrated in the case of many persons; and 3) the death of Jesus failed to save many for whom the Son of God, in fact, died. The reason for this sad state of affairs is that those persons refused to believe in Jesus, although they were able to do so by virtue of their free will. On the other hand, the reason why the others are saved is not that God loved them, desired their salvation, and gave His Son to die for them (for He also loved those who perish, desired their salvation, and gave His Son for them), but that they, by their free will, chose to believe. In conclusion, the damnation of the wicked is the defeat and disappointment of God, whereas the salvation of the believers is their own work. When the all-men-without-exception-people quote John 3:16, this is how they are reading it: "For God so loved all men without exception, that he gave his only begotten Son to die for all men without exception, with the desire that all men without exception be saved, so that whosoever believeth in him, of his own free will, should not perish, but have everlasting life." 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. John 6:33: "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." Does Jesus give life (not, ineffectually offer life, but, efficaciously give life) to all men without exception? If He does, all men without exception have eternal life. John 17:9: "I (Jesus) pray not for the world." Does Jesus refuse to pray for all men without exception? 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. In explanation, specifically, of the "world" of John 3:16, Kuyper went on to say that the reference is to the "proper kernal" of the creation, the elect people of God, "which Jesus snatches away from Satan." out of this kernal, out this congregation, out of this people, a "new world," a "new earth and new heaven," shall one day appear, by a wonder-work of God. The earth does not merely serve to allow the elect to be saved, in order then to disappear. No, the elect are men; these men form a whole, a collection, an organism; that organism is grounded in creation; and because now this creation is the reflection of God’s wisdom and the work of His hands, God’s administration of it may not come to nothing, but in the Great Day God’s will with this creation shall be perfectly realized. (Dat De Genade Particulier Is (That Grace is Particular). My translation of the Dutch.) 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.

[RnMomof7]

For all Calvinists without exception :>)

[RnMomof7]

Bump

[walden]

I didn't finish this piece, but I've read a few of these Calvinist screeds and I just have to say that the more I read about Calvinism the less attractive I find it. What is your purpose in posting this stuff?

[RnMomof7]

I didn't finish this piece, but I've read a few of these Calvinist screeds and I just have to say that the more I read about Calvinism the less attractive I find it. What is your purpose in posting this stuff?

No one ever said that the gospel was easy to hear or ordained to tickle the ears of everyone . There are plenty of place where you can read an easy gospel. It just will not be posted by a Calvinist. So avoid us

[DoorGunner]

From the article:

"We plead with our Reformed brothers and sisters..."

[One must assume that the writer is writing to people in the "Reformed" denominations.]

This, now, is their position:

[One must assume that he means the above described persons.]

Only the first three bullets could possibly be considered legitimate doctrinal positions of the persons set forth above. The final three bullets are conclusions which the writer has chosen to make, but which he attributes to the people he is castigating. The last two are particularly egregious:

On the other hand, the reason why the others are saved is not that God loved them, desired their salvation, and gave His Son to die for them (for He also loved those who perish, desired their salvation, and gave His Son for them), but that they, by their free will, chose to believe.

But, he saved the worst for last:

In conclusion, the damnation of the wicked is the defeat and disappointment of God, whereas the salvation of the believers is their own work.

Clearly, these "doctrinal position(s)" were made up, by the writer, and are not the actual doctrinal positions of any "Reformed" Christians.

If only the writer had read the article you posted yesterday, he would have known that this kind of attack was not appropriate. The following is a direct quote, from that article, with a minor modification: "[NON]-."

 

1) GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT:

You cannot expect [NON]-Calvinists to take you seriously if they can hardly identify themselves in what you write.

 

2) GIVE COMPLETE REFERENCES FOR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING:

[NON]-Calvinists are not stupid people. We expect references and we do look them up. If you fail to supply them or get them wrong when you do…we are left with the choice of wondering are you a fool or a knave? Neither really helps what you are trying to achieve.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1152724/posts

 

Maybe you should send him a copy of the first article, and ask him to provide a source for the above "doctrinal positions," so we can see that someone actually believes them.

DG

p.s. The above is obviously (I hope) intended to be a sort of verbal irony. Although my point is serious, I hope that you, (and other defenders of Calvinism) will be able to see that the admonitions of yesterday's article apply not only to your opponents, but also to the defenders of Calvinism.

p.p.s. It is instructive that I, personally, tried to avoid this quagmire. If GeRPiLs had not used these tactics (and worse) against me, we could now be getting along, and building each other up, instead of trying to tear each other down.

[strongbow]

My old pastor once gave exegesis of John 3:16 in a way I had never thought of. The "so loved" in this verse can also be read as "in this way". The point being that God had a particular and peculiar way with regard to the cross and the redemption there attained for us. When I read Isaiah 55 the words "My ways are not your ways neither are your thoughts my thoughts" seem to bear this out. This understanding more than explaining what the world means seems to shed more light on this strawman of potential universalism. The world obviously cannot mean all men unless scripture is not consistant with itself.

[walden]

Interesting. So, that IS the objective-- to be avoided by non-Calvinists. Hmmmm.

[William Terrell]

How many Calvinists are part of the 12,000 from each of the Israelite tribes?

[ponyespresso]

For read and study later

pony

[P-Marlowe]

From Philip Johnson's Calvinist Website:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

[connectthedots]

From Johnson's website:

"History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends."

Obviously, there are a lot of hyper-Calvinists amongst the GRPL.

[Frapster]

I disagree with and completely reject the premise of this article. Christ died for all and all rejected him so God chose a few. Christ died for all mankind - period. John 3:16 is not about election - it is first and foremost an expression of God's love for the crown of his creation. There are many references in the scripture that indicate God's love for mankind, 2 Peter 3:9 being one of them. Please save me the argument against 2 Peter 3:9 because I have it up on my other screen even as I type - I've heard it a million times before. Certainly we must take John 3:16 in context of all of scripture but we must all take all of scripture in context of John 3:16.

As for John 2:2 and others - let's get something straight - all of creation groans under the weight of sin and waits for the redemption of the world. When Adam fell we died spiritually but the entrance of sin into God's creation was pervasive to all of creation.

---

Romans 8:19-21 - 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[9] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

---

The whole of creation most certainly benefits from Christ's death upon the cross - it is we as humans, however, that have been called to choose based upon our particular dispensation of free will. This is where my belief in election comes in and understands that all have rejected (including the elect). All were given the opportunity to reject - how else could they reject something that was not offered to them in the first place?

God's love indeed extends to all mankind.

[mdmathis6]

What we need,when these calvinist articles are posted are inputs by those who understand the greek, aramaic and latin texts from which these verses including the passages of predistination have been translatied into English. When I read the surrounding contextual verses in John and the predistination passages as well, I don't see how hypercalvinists can justify what they are saying. So what does the greek actually say?

One can turn the article back on itself and say that what the Calvinists are actually saying about John 3:16 For God so loved the World(of the predestined elect) that he gave his only begotten son, that who-soever believeth in him(that is when those of the elect come to that time in his or her life as pre-detirmined by God) shall not perish(it was never in doubt any way!) but have eternal life!

The verse just can't be interpreted that way!

[Frapster]

Agreed.

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

I didn't finish this piece, but I've read a few of these Calvinist screeds and I just have to say that the more I read about Calvinism the less attractive I find it.
God's Truth isn't very tasty to the postmodernist religionists, nor is it meant to be.

If you believe that God loves everyone without exception, then you must believe God's Word contradicts itself:

Psalm 5
4For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
5The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.
6You shall destroy those who speak falsehood;
The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

What is your purpose in posting this stuff?

Truth!

[Frapster]

The verse just can't be interpreted that way!

Clarification: I'm in agreement with this statement.

[american colleen]

I Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

?

[P-Marlowe]

I disagree with and completely reject the premise of this article....
God's love indeed extends to all mankind.

Frapster.
GRPL member #55.

[Frapster]

I don't appreciate you stirring the pot - the scripture (and therefore God) speaks quite unfavorably about such behavior.

[redeemed_by_His_blood]

Interesting. So, that IS the objective-- to be avoided by non-Calvinists. Hmmmm.

No, the objective isn't to avoid non-Calvinists. However, since you find God's Truth so distasteful to sugary sweet tastes, the Elect sister was simply advising you to save yourself some discomfort and seek easy believism and politically correct religion instead of the hard Truth.