God desires to save everyone (
1 Tim 2:3-4). That's what it means when it says He loved the world in such a way He sent His Son.
Paul's calling was particularly to the Gentiles. The word in 1 Tim 2:3-4 is not 'everyone'—it is "all men". The typical Calvinist/Reformed response to this is (I think), particularly in respect to "all kinds of people". I'm not going to push how "all people" is equated to "those in authority" in verses 1 and 2.
My view of 1 Tim 2:3,4 concerns common use of language: It can refer to a particular use of the word, in, "God...
wants", which is not very closely related to how people 'want', since God lacks nothing and is not encroached upon by his passions. It can be a general statement concerning the range of people in a group, or even within humanity in general, without reference to anyone in particular. The verses' particular focus seems to be "the knowledge of the truth" and not about the individuals within any group. And while I'm not committed to interpreting according to outcome or implications of any one take, here, it is notable that not all will be saved, nor even that all will come to knowledge of the truth. And I'll not push how "all people" is related to Paul's calling to the Gentiles in verses 6 and 7.
You have only made the assertion that 1 Tim 2:3-4 —in which, apparently, you assume universal intent, as opposed to a general reference to intent—is definitive of John 3:16's "all those believing" as related to the "so that" of God's intent. You have not here shown how it is related, but only said that it is.
Can you show how it is derived of my theology? I think it's derived from the context.
The context of John 3:16 does indeed involve the immediate mention of purpose. But 3:16 does not mention universal outcome of that purpose; it shows kindly intent toward his creation (which is a logical 'given' from simple reason—why would he bother to even create anything; he needed nothing—) But neither does it demonstrate particular intent toward any one person in the term, "world", except as qualified by "those believing", nowhere there qualified by use of "each member of the group, 'world'.".
If I remember correctly, you have used the term, "whosoever", to imply an unknowable willed entity, acting upon their own volition. But the verse does not say that. This assumption reflects back onto your use of "world" as you read the verse. But that is not what it says, but rather only, "all those believing", without any assumption of the force of will in the believer.
Is it derived of Piper's, MacArthur's and D.A. Carson's theology too? Let's see what they say:
"But on the other hand,
John 3:16 says, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” This surely means that God is loving all and offering all eternal life — the very life that the Spirit gives in verse 8"
"Here is a profound wonder: God loved "the world"—this wicked realm of fallen humanity—so much that He sacrificed His only begotten Son to pay the price of redemption for all who believe in Him"
"God’s love as depicted in 3:16 is in line with His call to all sinners to turn from the broad way that leads to death onto the narrow road that leads to life, Carson said. The verse makes clear that the Gospel is to be preached to all persons, but it spotlights the fact that God loves them despite their sinfulness and rebellion, he said."
I'm sure they don't agree with my full understanding of
John 3:16-17, but they seem to agree the world refers to all mankind and not creation.
A sidenote: I'm aware that it's Jeff Robinson quoting D.A. Carson.
I don't really hold to Calvinism/Reformed theology as such. Those proponents do influence my thinking, but they don't represent me. My theology is only "calvinistic" or "Reformed-like". So, no, my theology is not derived of them. I didn't come to it by that route.
Your Biblical understanding seems to be strongly influenced by your philosophy on the will. It's not of a concern to me how it works. My concern is what the Bible teaches.
You do, I hope, admit that what you believe influences your Biblical understanding, yes? It is really unavoidable. It is good to recognize it and try to limit its influence, but it is unavoidable, all the same.
My philosophy on the will is drawn on hard experience and my need for scripture's statements, particularly concerning my inability to of myself do what is good and right and obedient to Christ. Have you attained a satisfactory level of obedience to the two commandments—to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself? Of course not. Look at the standard! That understanding of the will is drawn on Scripture. I do not deny that it is a lens, but I have more than enough scriptural edict, directive and definition to show that it is a good lens. Much MUCH better than the lens drawn from a POV of self-actualization.
In what way God loves all sinners? He wants what's best for everyone, and desires everyone's salvation (again
1 Tim 2:3-4). If we have free libertarian will or not is a separate question and does not change what the Bible says.
Again, 1 Tim 2:3-4 doesn't say what you are thinking it does, nor does it specifically relate to John 3:16 how you want it to.
No, I showed that the passage is about salvation, not about God's restoration of the world. When Moses hung up the serpent the intent of "salvation" was universal, it was for all who had been bitten by snakes (compare with the fall and the cross), but only those who actually looked at the serpent were healed (compare with "whoever believes will be saved").
I didn't say it was about God's restoration of the world. I'm saying that when God speaks of loving the world, it may well be referring to that which he created, which is not, (in his view and intent), bound by any temporal frame, even though we can't help thinking that way. He spoke the final product (Heaven and His People) into fact—time does not govern that, though it was used to bring it about. You seem to think, "world", is only about what we think of—people in general and—in modern day mentality/philosophy—each individual.
Can you show by the context that
John 3:16-17 is about the restoration of the world? If not, I think you should look into other options.
The whole of the 66 books of the canon is philosophy. Do you mean to say that only immediate context should be used? Ok, look at his discourse with Nicodemus. And look at his use of light and darkness in the rest of chapter 3. Look at his narrative of the acts and sayings of Jesus throughout the book of John's gospel. Look at the beginning, in Chapter 1, and its bare statements concerning God and his acts and the will of man. Where do you, without assuming 'free will' as opposed to 'real' will, find anything about God's gracious mercy and man's eternal salvation, being hinged on 'just whosoever's' fickle will? It is not there.
Granted, the most natural reading is not always the correct one, and we can have different opinions on what is most natural. But most Biblical scholars actually agree with me that the world refers to everyone in the world. There has to be a good reason to understand it differently and so far I have not seen one.
It does not, as I have shown, refer to "each and every individual—who knows?" within that envelope.
