A Biblical and Contextual Explanation of John 3:16, 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4.

[twin1954]

A Biblical and Contextual Explanation of John 3:16, 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4.




These are the three passages of the Scriptures most used by free-will works religionists as arrows to strike at the heart of Calvinism. Though they have been answered more than can be counted they are still shot at us as though we cannot explain them or give a Biblical response to them.

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.
(Joh 3:16)

The first thing I would point out to all honest folks is that the passage isn’t as much about who God loves as it is about how much He loves. The Lord Jesus Christ wasn’t teaching Nicodemus about who God loves (though that is part of what He was teaching) as much as He was teaching him how much God loves. God loves so very much that He has given His well beloved Son to stand under the wrath of a just and holy God as the sinners substitute. God’s darling Son loved us and gave Himself for us to redeem us from our sin and satisfy the justice and law of God, which was against us, nailing our sin to His cross, shedding His precious blood for us and dying in our place as a condemned sinner. This is the main point of Christ’s message to this Pharisee. To overlook this point is to misunderstand and misuse the passage.

Secondly we must get the context of the passage to actually understand the passage.
The Lord Jesus Christ was not just talking to a common Jew but to a Pharisee. The Pharisees were the most outwardly holy and educated in the Scriptures of all the sects of the Jews. They would not defile themselves in any way if they could prevent it. They had added many traditions to the Law in order to appear more holy than all others. One of the things that they would do is to not be near a Gentile lest they be defiled by him. Their view was that God only loved Jews.
When the Lord Jesus told this Pharisee that God loved the world He was telling him that God doesn’t just love Jews. He wasn’t telling him that God loves every person in the world ,that would be against both the teaching of the Scriptures and the Jews understanding, but that He loves Gentiles as well as Jews. Nicodemus would have understood this.
To make the passage mean that the Lord was teaching that God loves every person in the world is to misunderstand the passage in its context and to misuse it in its teaching.

2Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
(2Pe 3:9)

Honesty demands that we understand this passage according to its context and that we ask of it two questions.
The context, of course, is Peter seeking to give instruction and comfort to the people of God concerning the coming of the Lord. Peter was determined to convince and comfort the people to whom he was writing to not be concerned with those who doubted the coming of the Lord. Don’t listen to them was his admonition. He did so by pointing them to the promise that Christ would return and that our view of time is not God’s view of time. He was telling them that Christ would not return until He had brought to fruition all that He had purposed. Which brings us to the two questions we must ask of the passage.
The questions are who are the “us” in the verse and who are the “any”? We must answer these questions to properly grasp the meaning and truly interpret the verse. Without answering those questions we can make the verse say what we think it ought to say, as it is so often used, instead of what it actually says.
To answer the question of who are the “us” we must look to whom the Apostle is writing the letter. He is writing to believers of course. He is not writing to or about unbelievers and to apply the verse as though he were is blatant dishonesty with the Scriptures. Every New Testament letter, with the possible exception of Hebrews, is written to believers not unbelievers. In every case the word “us” is referring to believers.
The question of who are the “any” in the verse must refer to the “us” which the writer is speaking to. Common sense requires that we recognize that the words “any” and “all”, the Greek word pas, must have a qualifier. Any and all must refer to something or someone. It is incumbent on us to determine what or whom the words refer. We simply cannot apply the words to whatever we desire them to refer to. The answer is always found in the context. If I say “any” or “all” without qualifying to whom I refer you cannot grasp my meaning. I could be referring to any or all dogs, mountains, trees or a myriad of other things or people. The context or a clear reference is required to establish what is meant.
Therefore we must understand and interpret the verse in question to refer to the “us” previously used in the verse. Peter is simply saying that God is not willing that any of us perish. To apply it to mean “all” men without exception is to take the verse out of its context and to be dishonest with its clear and unmistakable meaning.

1Timothy 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(1Ti 2:4)

Once more context is key in understanding the verse given. Verses one through three give us that context.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(1Ti 2:1-3)

To interpret this 1Timothy 2:4 as though Paul intends to teach that God would have all men without exception to be saved is to deny the whole of the teaching of Paul in almost every other of his letters. Paul writes, by the inspiration of the Spirit, in almost all his letters against such a view. So how do we interpret and understand the verse?

It is clear from verses one through three that Paul intends for us to understand that he means all kinds of men not all men without exception. He instructs us to pray for kings and all that are in authority. He is telling us to pray for high and low. He is in no way telling us that God desires the salvation of all men without exception.


Now that you have taken the time to read this I expect that you can at least understand that the Calvinist position on these passages are legitimate and clear. That certainly doesn’t mean that you must agree with the explanations but that you acknowledge that there are legitimate explanations. So since this is true, to continue to throw them out as though they have no legitimate interpretation other than yours is to be dishonest with both the Scriptures and those whom you would argue against. Be honest when you debate and no longer just throw out a passage of Scripture as though it strikes at the heart of your opponents argument without giving the context and meaning in an honest manner.

 

[USCGrad90]

I am not sure I understand your points:
John 3:16 - "He was telling him that God doesn’t just love Jews. He wasn’t telling him that God loves every person in the world...He loves Gentiles as well as Jews."
The term "Gentile" is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי (goy) and נכרי (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthn&#275 in the New Testament. The term Gentiles is derived from Latin, used for contextual translation, and not an original Hebrew or Greek word from the Bible. The original words goy and ethnos refer to "peoples" or "nations". Latin and later English translators selectively used the term Gentiles when the context for the base term "peoples" or "nations" referred to non-Israelite peoples or nations in English translations of the Bible.
So if Paul was referring to non-Jews, outsiders, other nations, etc... Why would this not indicate that he was saying God loves EVERY person in the world???
Why also would Christ instruct us to "GO" and teach "ALL" nations as referenced in Mark 28:19???
Before discussing 2 Peter and 1 Timothy - please explain exactly what you mean here.

 

[twin1954]

I am not sure I understand your points:
John 3:16 - "He was telling him that God doesn’t just love Jews. He wasn’t telling him that God loves every person in the world...He loves Gentiles as well as Jews."
The term "Gentile" is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי (goy) and נכרי (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthn&#275 in the New Testament. The term Gentiles is derived from Latin, used for contextual translation, and not an original Hebrew or Greek word from the Bible. The original words goy and ethnos refer to "peoples" or "nations". Latin and later English translators selectively used the term Gentiles when the context for the base term "peoples" or "nations" referred to non-Israelite peoples or nations in English translations of the Bible.
So if Paul was referring to non-Jews, outsiders, other nations, etc... Why would this not indicate that he was saying God loves EVERY person in the world???
Why also would Christ instruct us to "GO" and teach "ALL" nations as referenced in Mark 28:19???
Before discussing 2 Peter and 1 Timothy - please explain exactly what you mean here.

It seems you answered your own questions. All the technical lingo only confuses the issue. There is usually only one reason that men quote the Hebrew or Greek and that is to let everyone know that they know it. In all my years I have never seen it settle any doctrinal issues. The Greek and Hebrew are just as much a matter of interpretation as the English.

But to the question of why are we instructed to go and teach all nations I will let the Scriptures answer.
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
(Rev 7:9)
We do not know who the elect are or exactly where each one is. What we do know is that they are of every nation, kindreds, people and tongues. God calls His elect by the preaching of the Gospel.

 

[tall73]

1Timothy 2:4

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
(1Ti 2:4)

Once more context is key in understanding the verse given. Verses one through three give us that context.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
(1Ti 2:1-3)

To interpret this 1Timothy 2:4 as though Paul intends to teach that God would have all men without exception to be saved is to deny the whole of the teaching of Paul in almost every other of his letters. Paul writes, by the inspiration of the Spirit, in almost all his letters against such a view. So how do we interpret and understand the verse?

It is clear from verses one through three that Paul intends for us to understand that he means all kinds of men not all men without exception. He instructs us to pray for kings and all that are in authority. He is telling us to pray for high and low. He is in no way telling us that God desires the salvation of all men without exception.

That context in no way says what you indicate. Why did he want the prayers offered? He told you, because God desires all to be saved, and prayers were part of that process.

You did not really even offer much of an attempt at context other than to say other Scriptures showed the truth of it. Which the other side would say the same, of course.

The only text you presented where the context argument could be brought to bear is 2 Peter 3. The other two it sounds like twisting. Just as it sounds like twisting when we attempt to explain Romans 9.

 

[twin1954]

That context in no way says what you indicate. Why did he want the prayers offered? He told you, because God desires all to be saved, and prayers were part of that process.

You did not really even offer much of an attempt at context other than to say other Scriptures showed the truth of it. Which the other side would say the same, of course.

The context speaks for itself. There was no need for me to offer any thing else. But the point wasn't to establish that my interpretation is unquestionable but that there is a legitimate interpretation of the passage that is consistent with the Calvinist position. You don't have to agree.

 

[USCGrad90]

It seems you answered your own questions. All the technical lingo only confuses the issue. There is usually only one reason that men quote the Hebrew or Greek and that is to let everyone know that they know it. In all my years I have never seen it settle any doctrinal issues. The Greek and Hebrew are just as much a matter of interpretation as the English.

But to the question of why are we instructed to go and teach all nations I will let the Scriptures answer.
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
(Rev 7:9)
We do not know who the elect are or exactly where each one is. What we do know is that they are of every nation, kindreds, people and tongues. God calls His elect by the preaching of the Gospel.

Actually - you may have misunderstood my basic question.
I am wondering what your doctrinal point is. You quoted some scripture and provided an interpretation, but did not state exactly what you intend it to support.
You made one point that Paul stated that God loves more than just the Jews, but then turn around and state that this doesn't mean that God loves everybody. These statements seem to contradict each other.
The reference to the word "Gentile" was simply to show the origin of the word. The is not "technical" lingo, but was to make sure the understanding of that single word was defined for the discussion. Going back as far as possible in the original languages simply helps define the meaning of what is written and should help clarify the intent of the God-given writings. Besides that - you mentioned Greek writing in your OP - so I'm not sure why you are not comfortable with my reference to Hebrew and Greek.
I am not very familiar with "the elect" but I'm guessing you are saying that there are certain people who can be saved and some that can not.
This is not something I agree with and I believe that Jesus Christ died for the possibility of all men, women and children to be saved if they believe and accept Christ as their Saviour.

 

[twin1954]

Actually - you may have misunderstood my basic question.
I am wondering what your doctrinal point is. You quoted some scripture and provided an interpretation, but did not state exactly what you intend it to support.
You made one point that Paul stated that God loves more than just the Jews, but then turn around and state that this doesn't mean that God loves everybody. These statements seem to contradict each other.
The reference to the word "Gentile" was simply to show the origin of the word. The is not "technical" lingo, but was to make sure the understanding of that single word was defined for the discussion. Going back as far as possible in the original languages simply helps define the meaning of what is written and should help clarify the intent of the God-given writings. Besides that - you mentioned Greek writing in your OP - so I'm not sure why you are not comfortable with my reference to Hebrew and Greek.
I am not very familiar with "the elect" but I'm guessing you are saying that there are certain people who can be saved and some that can not.
This is not something I agree with and I believe that Jesus Christ died for the possibility of all men, women and children to be saved if they believe and accept Christ as their Saviour.

The point was to show that there are legitimate interpretations of the passages which are consistent with the Scriptural doctrine of election and predestination. They are among the texts most often used against Calvinists.

There is no contradiction in my explanation. My point being that it isn't necessary to understand the word translated "world" as meaning all men without exception. The Lord wasn't telling this Jew that God loves all men without exception but that He doesn't just love the Jews. God's elect are scattered all over the world but it isn't necessary to think that everybody in the world is meant.

Yes I gave the Greek word but I didn't make an argument from the Greek. I gave the Greek to show that both the words translated "any" and "all" are the same word. There is a legitimate use of the original languages but it is not one that is to be often used. Knowledge of the original languages are tools and nothing more. They do not settle any disputes about doctrine.

 

[USCGrad90]

I take this argument to be exactly the same as the Jews would make:
"Only Jews are saved."
"Only Elect are saved."
Change one word, but it is essentially the same thing.
I understand what you're saying, but don't necessarily agree that it is a legitimate interpretation for all Baptists or other denominations.
"Legitimate" means to be in accordance with established principles and standards. While it is one viewpoint and interpretation, it is not the accepted interpretation by all Christians, so I can simply say that I disagree with the interpretation and justify a different belief based on what I understand.

 

[twin1954]

I take this argument to be exactly the same as the Jews would make:
"Only Jews are saved."
"Only Elect are saved."
Change one word, but it is essentially the same thing.
I understand what you're saying, but don't necessarily agree that it is a legitimate interpretation for all Baptists or other denominations.
"Legitimate" means to be in accordance with established principles and standards. While it is one viewpoint and interpretation, it is not the accepted interpretation by all Christians, so I can simply say that I disagree with the interpretation and justify a different belief based on what I understand.

It is legitimate because it is the accepted and established view of most believers historically. Read the Reformers or the Puritans or Bunyan and so many others that I can name. Historically Baptists have been Calvinistic. The founders of the SBC all were as well as most of the independent Baptists until recently.

But yes you are free to disagree. I didn't say that my interpretation is the only legitimate interpretation but that there is a legitimate interpretation contrary to the Arminian one.

My point was to stop those who oppose the truth of Sovereign Grace from throwing out those verses as though we can't answer them.

 

[Avid]

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.
(John 3:16)

--- etc.---

To make the passage mean that the Lord was teaching that God loves every person in the world is to misunderstand the passage in its context and to misuse it in its teaching...

This passage is often used by those who have an opinion, and cannot support it any other way. I've discussed scripture with Churchgoers (even deacons and preachers) who will reply to EVERY point from any scripture with, "...but John 3:16 says..."

This passage was stated for the reasons you give, Twin. The impact is specific, though. That is that, as we read in Romans, the sin of Adam was upon every person who had lived. The sin of Adam was imputed to them at their birth, and the death sentence was written. Picture you are holding that precious bundle, and you have a birth certificate and a death warrant in your hand pertaining to that newborn. The penalty MUST be paid.

We are constantly reminded that, where no law is, there is not sin. Until the Law of Moses, certain things were not imputed as sin to the doer. However, even those who had not done according to Adam's sin still died! (Romans 5:14)

This impact is that the work of Jesus covered that death penalty. Now, there is a law, and all of us break it. We are not born with that death penalty because of Adam's sin. The sin is now our own...

God had legal issues to settle as well as spiritual issues. His Son, Jesus Christ our LORD, was a payment for sin, but much more. I have read on these discussion boards that keeping the law is our way to get to Heaven. (that this is done by Jesus on our behalf, etc.) The error of that statement is thinking that ONLY one thing stand in your way of getting anything you desire from God.

There was NO WAY for us to be brought into the abode of God, and stand in His presence. Even if there was no sin on our part, there was not a WAY. Jesus made that way, AND he obtained pardon through His payment on our behalf. Jesus is that WAY (John 14:6) into the abode of God, and into His presence.

It is important to see that Jesus did more than just one thing for our salvation. YES, He paid our sin debt to God the Father, but He did much more than that. I had explained part of this to friends like this on occasion:

There is a fellow in the Southwest US that has NEVER done anything wrong against you, never hurt anyone around him, always paid his bills on time, and never mistreated his family. He is very happy and excited to tell EVERYONE he meets that, when he retires, he is coming to live in YOUR HOUSE with you and your family. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?!?

The obvious answer is that you don't know this guy, and, NO, he is not coming to live in your house!!! If God does not know you, you are as much a stranger as the guy in this imaginary example. In the Great White Throne Judgment, Jesus will say to many, "...depart from me... I NEVER KNEW YOU."

This is the impact of the verse. So much must be done to reconcile man to God, and Jesus Christ did all that for those He saves. The part that deals with John 3:16 is the part that includes the whole world!

.

 

[Skala]

@Twin:

Just wanted to point out that the word "so" in John 3:16 doesn't mean "intensely" (or some other quantity of love). Instead, it means "in this manner" or "in this way" or "In this fashion".

So, the verse is not saying how much God loves the world, but rather, it is saying how God loved the world:

By sending his son to save believers.

(Notice, the verse says God sent Christ to save believers, not to save everyone.)

 

[Skala]

would this not indicate that he was saying God loves EVERY person in the world???

He doesn't love Esau. See Romans 9. So, is your question answered? Does God love EVERY single individual? It seems the answer is no.

Why also would Christ instruct us to "GO" and teach "ALL" nations as referenced in Mark 28:19???

Because the preaching of the gospel is the means that God uses to save all of His elect, which are scattered amongst all nations...

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

 

[twin1954]

@Twin:

Just wanted to point out that the word "so" in John 3:16 doesn't mean "intensely" (or some other quantity of love). Instead, it means "in this manner" or "in this way" or "In this fashion".

So, the verse is not saying how much God loves the world, but rather, it is saying how God loved the world:

By sending his son to save believers.

(Notice, the verse says God sent Christ to save believers, not to save everyone.)

Semantics. Yes it means how but it carries the connotation of how much in the context.

But thank you. I am always grateful for any help.

 

[tall73]

Now that you have taken the time to read this I expect that you can at least understand that the Calvinist position on these passages are legitimate and clear.

That is not at all what I understood. I understood from it that you can twist just as well as the other side does when dealing with strong texts for Calvinists.

Be honest when you debate and no longer just throw out a passage of Scripture as though it strikes at the heart of your opponents argument without giving the context and meaning in an honest manner.

The context of I Tim 2 indicates nothing that changes what the text says that God wishes all people to be saved. But more than that you cut off the second portion of the text, that He gave himself as a ransom for all. Is that how you demonstrate honesty in context?

1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Then you mention other texts in the Scriptures. But of course not all of these help your case either.

There are other texts that indicate Jesus dies for all, and not just all kinds of people:

1Ti 4:9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.
1Ti 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.


Jesus is the Savior of all, especially to those who believe. But then He is also Savior to those who don't. I guess it really IS all types, if it includes unbelievers.

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.


But we have also examples of this in practice:

Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.

Here we have people bought by the Master, who are denying Him and spreading heresy. How can that be if God only buys those who believe and are saved?


Here some are referenced who were sanctified with the blood of the covenant, and trample underfoot the Son of God:


Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?


How can that be if only those who are elect and saved are sanctified by His blood?

And we have another text that spells out the same thought, that God does not desire the death of anyone, and in that text He spells out a choice:


Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

 

[twin1954]

That is not at all what I understood. I understood from it that you can twist just as well as the other side does when dealing with strong texts for Calvinists.

Whether you agree with my explanations is not the point. You weren't expected to. The point was that to continue to throw the passages at us as though we have no answer or to just ignore that we can answer them is dishonest. What usually happens is that the passages are thrown out as though they are an end to all argument and settle the whole matter. Though you may think it is a twist it isn't. It is a reasonable and legitimate explanation of each of the passages like it or not. More than that it is in agreement with the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

I must wonder why though you chose to answer with a general response to all but one of them.

The context of I Tim 2 indicates nothing that changes what the text says that God wishes all people to be saved.

I didn't suggest that the context changes the text I said it explains who is meant in the text.

But more than that you cut off the second portion of the text, that He gave himself as a ransom for all. Is that how you demonstrate honesty in context?

It wasn't necessary because it is speaking of the same people.

1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

To understand this to mean that He ransomed every body in the world is to deny the very words of the Lord when He said that He is the good Shepherd and the Good Shepard gives His life for the sheep. Also many other passages that clearly teach He made an atonement for a particular people. It makes the Scriptures contradict themselves. I will refrain from getting into the logical problems with universal redemption.

Then you mention other texts in the Scriptures. But of course not all of these help your case either.

There are other texts that indicate Jesus dies for all, and not just all kinds of people:

1Ti 4:9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.
1Ti 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.


Jesus is the Savior of all, especially to those who believe. But then He is also Savior to those who don't. I guess it really IS all types, if it includes unbelievers.

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.


But we have also examples of this in practice:

Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.

Here we have people bought by the Master, who are denying Him and spreading heresy. How can that be if God only buys those who believe and are saved?


Here some are referenced who were sanctified with the blood of the covenant, and trample underfoot the Son of God:


Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?


How can that be if only those who are elect and saved are sanctified by His blood?

And we have another text that spells out the same thought, that God does not desire the death of anyone, and in that text He spells out a choice:


Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

I am familiar with all of these texts but intentionally limited my comments to the ones most often used. It would take quite a few pages to explain all of these texts and far too much time just to appease a forum. We can take them up individually over time if you wish just start a thread on each one at reasonable intervals.

We can play verse tag all day and all night and accomplish nothing. I no longer debate in such a way. If you want to try and overwhelm with a slew of verses thrown out without a contextual explanation then go ahead. I just will not bother with that tactic. I am not trying to win a debate I am trying to show truth.

 

[USCGrad90]

I am learning about points of Calvinism in this thread that I was unaware.
I still do not understand all of the concepts, so have a basic question:

Understand - I'm not trying to be smart or condescending in the question - I am just trying to understand:
If people are already chosen to be saved or condemned what is the purpose of witnessing and spreading the Gospel?

 

[DeaconDean]

If people are already chosen to be saved or condemned what is the purpose of witnessing and spreading the Gospel?

If I may...we do not know who these people are. A classic example is Paul's preaching in Acts 13.

How many were present at Paul's preaching? One could assume that the whole town turned out, but only the "elect" believed.

We do not who the elect are, but we are still commanded to preach the gospel so that not only are the elect reached, but the whole world.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

I am learning about points of Calvinism in this thread that I was unaware.
I still do not understand all of the concepts, so have a basic question:

Understand - I'm not trying to be smart or condescending in the question - I am just trying to understand:
If people are already chosen to be saved or condemned what is the purpose of witnessing and spreading the Gospel?

I hope that you are learning them in the proper context. What I mean is that all too often the five points are framed in forum debates as cold, robotic and heartless. That just isn't true at all.

We don't just believe in sovereign election we believe in Sovereign electing love. God is under no obligation to save any. Every child of Adam is by nature and by choice a condemned sinner worthy of nothing from God but everlasting torment in Hell. It is amazing that He chose to save any at all. But, He in love, chose us and predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will. He says that He has loved us with an everlasting love therefore with lovingkindness has He drawn us.

With that in mind let me answer your question.

First and foremost we preach because we desire with all our hearts that people know Christ in all His glory. We want folks to have the peace that passes understanding and to be found in Him not having their own righteousness but His righteousness and to know Him in the power of His resurrection. We preach because God's grace experienced in the heart makes His people gracious, His love shed abroad in the heart makes His people loving. We preach because we care.

Secondly we preach because God has, in His infinite wisdom, ordained that the preaching of the Gospel, foolishness to the unregenerate, is the power of God unto salvation to all that believe. We preach because we are assured that the Gospel will accomplish what God sends it out to do. We preach with utter confidence knowing that God has an elect people out there who will hear and believe by the power of His Gospel preached in the Spirit. We do not know who the elect are so we proclaim the Good News to all who will give ear.

Third we preach because we are commanded to.

 

[USCGrad90]

He doesn't love Esau. See Romans 9. So, is your question answered? Does God love EVERY single individual? It seems the answer is no.

Because the preaching of the gospel is the means that God uses to save all of His elect, which are scattered amongst all nations...

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

From the point on Esau - I have read discussion from the standpoint that God hated Esau after Esau had practiced evil things and despised his heritage. One point of view is that if Esau had instead chosen to honor his heritage - then God would honor that choice.

Also - as I noted - I am struggling to understand what the purpose of witnessing would be if God has already chosen who will be saved or not.

 

[twin1954]

From the point on Esau - I have read discussion from the standpoint that God hated Esau after Esau had practiced evil things and despised his heritage. One point of view is that if Esau had instead chosen to honor his heritage - then God would honor that choice.

Also - as I noted - I am struggling to understand what the purpose of witnessing would be if God has already chosen who will be saved or not.

The question is easily answered by the Scriptures:


And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(Rom 9:10-16)

I think I answered your question as to why preach earlier.