[blue-duncan]

No I am not a Universalist. What I expect when debating is for words to mean what they logically do in the context in which they are presented. So that when "world" (kosmos)is used it is interpreted in the way that was understood back when it was written, not 2000 years later, to suit one's position in a theological argument. That goes for "love" (agape). When the same word is used towards the believer and the world, to try to glean different meaning and intensity out of it to suit a particular system is like Humpty Dumpty's "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" rendering it an "uncertain trumpet".

[RnMomof7]

No I am not a Universalist. What I expect when debating is for words to mean what they logically do in the context in which they are presented. So that when "world" (kosmos)is used it is interpreted in the way that was understood back when it was written, not 2000 years later, to suit one's position in a theological argument. That goes for "love" (agape). When the same word is used towards the believer and the world, to try to glean different meaning and intensity out of it to suit a particular system is like Humpty Dumpty's "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less" rendering it an "uncertain trumpet".

So all the "world " went after Him?" (That should give you a clue that it did not always mean the entire world or all creation . )

The fact is if you choose to interpret World to mean all of the world, Christ has died for the cows and the pigs, and he has died for all men.

IF he has died for all men (by that verse taken as you render it) then all men are saved already as there is no modifier on the verse.

Now if He did die for all men and only a portion are actually saved, it means that God is an indian giver accepting that as payment in full for some and demanding an additional payment from others (which they can not pay)

So yes you are promoting universalism