Arminian Or Calvinist?

[PrincetonGuy]

I am an old fashioned Baptist (very OLD fashioned, before Calvinism was introduced into our Baptist churches), a 0 point Calvinist.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I am a Calvinist Baptist. Calvinists have played a very significant part in Baptist history. I have been saved for 18 years and spent the first three or so firmly committed to the Arminian soteriological position. Over time, God convinced me that His Word does not teach libertarian human freedom, and that the "Doctrines of Grace" espoused by Calvinists are in fact eminently Scriptural. Therefore, after many years slowly moving away from Arminianism, I woke up one day and realized that I had become a Calvinist.

My Dear Readers,

I read through the Bible before I ever heard of Calvin or any of his teachings, so of course reading the Bible did not make me a Calvinist. A little later on in life, I read about Calvin and his teachings and I was very glad that I had read the Bible and correctly understood it before Calvinism could confuse me. And then a Presbyterian minister with whom I was only slightly acquainted purchased two books for me:

The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner

It wasn’t Christmas or my birthday, so I asked him why he bought the books for me. He told me that it was important for me to learn the “truths” of Calvinism, and that I would “never learn them from the Bible.” Well, he was right—I never learned them from the Bible! And by the grace of God, I read my Bible over and over again instead of those two books and God spared me from the five points of Calvinism.

Since then I have studied Calvinism, but I still know better than to go tiptoeing through the TULIPs. May God spare you also!

 

[DeaconDean]

My Dear Readers,

I read through the Bible before I ever heard of Calvin or any of his teachings, so of course reading the Bible did not make me a Calvinist. A little later on in life, I read about Calvin and his teachings and I was very glad that I had read the Bible and correctly understood it before Calvinism could confuse me. And then a Presbyterian minister with whom I was only slightly acquainted purchased two books for me:

The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner

It wasn’t Christmas or my birthday, so I asked him why he bought the books for me. He told me that it was important for me to learn the “truths” of Calvinism, and that I would “never learn them from the Bible.” Well, he was right—I never learned them from the Bible! And by the grace of God, I read my Bible over and over again instead of those two books and God spared me from the five points of Calvinism.

Since then I have studied Calvinism, but I still know better than to go tiptoeing through the TULIPs. May God spare you also!

PG, did you or did you not tell me about 2 years ago that you were a Wesleyan Baptist?

I remember you did because I searched the internet looking for a definition of what that was.

Now I know.

And I know what you are.

To quote you:

May God spare you also!

Since you are so...whats the word...hateful...of Calvinists, here is an open invitation to the SR room.

Come on over and preach that stuff there. What have you got to lose, you have all the answers.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[rcorlew]

11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers.
12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I am a disciple.

 

[Vince53]

Someone had objected to the statement that Jesus died for all men.


John 1:29 ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

[DeaconDean]

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21 (KJV)

"For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." -Mk. 10:45 (KJV)

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TimRout]

Someone had objected to the statement that Jesus died for all men.


John 1:29 ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

What evidence can you provide that "world", in these verses, must be referring to all people exhaustively -- given that "world" is used variously throughout the New Testament and in the writings of John?

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Vince, if I am hearing you correctly, you seem to think this verse teaches that Christ brought the possibility of justification to all people exhaustively. But wouldn't a consistent reading of εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους (upon all men) suggest a limited group -- the elect? If not, then how do you avoid a universalist reading?

 

[Vince53]

The Greek word "kosmos," translated "world," never means "the elect," or "some men." Not in classical Greek literature, not in the Bible, and not in the Greek dictionary.

Someone quoted Scripture that Jesus died for "many" as proof that He only died for the elect. But the word "many" simply means "many." The same Greek word is used in Matthew 7:13: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." The next verse states that only a "few" will enter through the narrow gate.

 

[TimRout]

The Greek word "kosmos," translated "world," never means "the elect," or "some men." Not in classical Greek literature, not in the Bible, and not in the Greek dictionary.

But this is simply untrue, Vince. Consider one of the most popular usages in John's Gospel:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." [Jn. 3:16]

Notice the phrase "whoever believes". This is a translation of πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων --- literally "everyone believing". God sent His Son to provide eternal life to a limited group, not to everyone exhaustively. Only the "believing" ones receive eternal life. Notice also that God did not send His Son to make salvation possible for everyone, but to actually save a specific group --- "everyone believing".

Therefore Vince, I must challenge your assertion that κόσμος never refers to the elect. After all, the elect are, by definition, all who have ever or will ever believe on Christ unto eternal life. The insistence of synergists that the English word "whosoever" [KJV] must mean all persons exhaustively, is simply incongruent with the text.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PG, did you or did you not tell me about 2 years ago that you were a Wesleyan Baptist?

I remember you did because I searched the internet looking for a definition of what that was.

Now I know.

And I know what you are.

To quote you:

May God spare you also!

Since you are so...whats the word...hateful...of Calvinists, here is an open invitation to the SR room.

Come on over and preach that stuff there. What have you got to lose, you have all the answers.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yes, I characterized my Baptist beliefs as being Wesleyan Baptist, and that characterization remains true today. Perhaps you also remember that I posted on about March 30 in 2007,

“A friend of mine who was a staunchly Calvinistic Presbyterian pastor shot himself in the head and died. His death certificate does not say that it was an accidental shooting.”

Perhaps you also remember that I wrote in a P.M. on March 14 in 2008,

“Indeed, a dear brother of mine whom I hold in the highest regard and whom I have known for 37 years holds with the utmost tenacity to the doctrines of Calvinism, yet I can say without hesitation that he just as tenaciously holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith and that his Christian faith is more obvious and apparent in his everyday life than is the case of anyone else with whom I am acquainted….Christians who are Calvinists are my brothers and sisters in Christ with whom I share the fundamentals of the Christian faith but who hold to some VERY wrong and harmful doctrines.”

I have never hated a Calvinist, but I am certain that Calvinists “hold to some VERY wrong and harmful doctrines,” and it is my prayer that God will spare many Christians from believing in those doctrines.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by Vince53
Someone had objected to the statement that Jesus died for all men.


John 1:29 ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


What evidence can you provide that "world", in these verses, must be referring to all people exhaustively -- given that "world" is used variously throughout the New Testament and in the writings of John?

There is absolutely nothing in these three verses that suggests that anything other than the entire world is in view. John was more than capable of using the word elect rather than world if he meant the elect; therefore let’s take the Apostle John’s word for it over the word of John Calvin.

Originally Posted by Vince53
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Vince, if I am hearing you correctly, you seem to think this verse teaches that Christ brought the possibility of justification to all people exhaustively. But wouldn't a consistent reading ofεἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους (upon all men) suggest a limited group -- the elect? If not, then how do you avoid a universalist reading?

The construction of Paul’s sentence and its parallelism does NOT allow for the interpretation that the set of people in second half of the verse is any other than the set of people in the first half of the verse. That much is linguistically incontrovertible. Any interpretation MUST take this fact into full consideration, and the incorrect doctrine of universalism was one result. Other interpretations are possible and have been put forth. The straight forward interpretation is that the free gift came upon all men. Does this mean that all men will be justified? This verse does not answer that question. We must continue reading the chapter,


Rom. 5:18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Justification comes to all men (not to just an imaginary elect), but not all men will be made righteous. Why? Paul told us why in the first verse of this chapter,

Rom. 5:1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Without faith, God’s justification is ineffectual.

Let’s take God at His word in the Scriptures, using His words instead of Calvin’s.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by Vince53
The Greek word "kosmos," translated "world," never means "the elect," or "some men." Not in classical Greek literature, not in the Bible, and not in the Greek dictionary.

But this is simply untrue, Vince. Consider one of the most popular usages in John's Gospel:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." [Jn. 3:16]

Notice the phrase "whoever believes". This is a translation ofπᾶς ὁ πιστεύων --- literally "everyone believing". God sent His Son to provide eternal life to a limited group, not to everyone exhaustively. Only the "believing" ones receive eternal life. Notice also that God did not send His Son to make salvation possible for everyone, but to actually save a specific group --- "everyone believing".

Therefore Vince, I must challenge your assertion thatκόσμος never refers to the elect. After all, the elect are, by definition, all who have ever or will ever believe on Christ unto eternal life. The insistence of synergists that the English word "whosoever" [KJV] must mean all persons exhaustively, is simply incongruent with the text.

Vince is absolutely correct. John 3:16 does NOT say that God so loved the elect; it says that God so loved the world, and “the world” in the writings of John never means “the elect” or “some men;” it always means all the people of the world, except in John 12:19 where it is used hyperbolically by the Pharisees, in passages where Jesus used the word pejoratively as in John 14:17, and in John 21:25 where Jesus used the word for the planet earth. God sent His son into the world to make salvation possible for everyone, but not everyone chose to receive it by faith.

John 3:18. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

And notice that in John 17:6 and 9, Jesus makes a distinction between the all-inclusive world, and those who believe in Him (the elect).

John 17:6. “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.”

John 17:9. “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;”

 

[TimRout]

Vince is absolutely correct. John 3:16 does NOT say that God so loved the elect; it says that God so loved the world, and “the world” in the writings of John never means “the elect” or “some men;” it always means all the people of the world, except in John 12:19....

And notice that in John 17:6 and 9, Jesus makes a distinction between the all-inclusive world, and those who believe in Him (the elect).

Do forgive my compression of your post, but I wanted to point out a key inconsistency in your argument.

The two portions cited in red cannot both be true. Given your hermeneutic, either "world" means all people exhaustively, or world refers to a limited group --- all humanity minus the elect. If the former, then a consistent application of your hermeneutic can lead only to universalism. If the latter, then my argument from John 3:16 is valid.

In order to support your assertion you must:

1. Deal with the aforementioned inconsistency.

2. Demonstrate that the Scriptures teach salvation as a general possibility only.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Do forgive my compression of your post, but I wanted to point out a key inconsistency in your argument.

The two portions cited in red cannot both be true. Given your hermeneutic, either "world" means all people exhaustively, or world refers to a limited group --- all humanity minus the elect. If the former, then a consistent application of your hermeneutic can lead only to universalism. If the latter, then my argument from John 3:16 is valid.

In order to support your assertion you must:

1. Deal with the aforementioned inconsistency.

2. Demonstrate that the Scriptures teach salvation as a general possibility only.

1. There are no inconsistencies in my post. Allowing for the exceptions that I cited, the word world means all people exhaustively. Jesus makes a distinction between the all-inclusive world and a subset of the world, those who believe in him, but He NEVER refers to that subset as “the world.” My hermeneutic cannot lead to universalism because according to my hermeneutic, “Without faith, God’s justification is ineffectual.”

2. I do not have to demonstrate anything because we have the Scriptures before us, and these Scriptures declare that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” I do not believe that John got careless and used the word world when he really meant the elect of God. John used the expression “the world” over 50 times in his gospel, 20 times in his epistles, and 4 times in The Revelation of Jesus Christ. In none of these uses, is there any linguistic evidence that He ever used the expression for a subset of the world. When He used the word pejoratively, as he frequently did, he used the word hyperbolically, but never as a subset.

I love you guys, but it is now my family time. May God bless you all.

 

[Livindesert]

1. There are no inconsistencies in my post. Allowing for the exceptions that I cited, the word world means all people exhaustively. Jesus makes a distinction between the all-inclusive world and a subset of the world, those who believe in him, but He NEVER refers to that subset as “the world.” My hermeneutic cannot lead to universalism because according to my hermeneutic, “Without faith, God’s justification is ineffectual.”

2. I do not have to demonstrate anything because we have the Scriptures before us, and these Scriptures declare that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” I do not believe that John got careless and used the word world when he really meant the elect of God. John used the expression “the world” over 50 times in his gospel, 20 times in his epistles, and 4 times in The Revelation of Jesus Christ. In none of these uses, is there any linguistic evidence that He ever used the expression for a subset of the world. When He used the word pejoratively, as he frequently did, he used the word hyperbolically, but never as a subset.

I love you guys, but it is now my family time. May God bless you all.

QFT

 

[TimRout]

Jesus makes a distinction between the all-inclusive world and a subset of the world, those who believe in him, but He NEVER refers to that subset as “the world.”

I'm sorry PG, but the text does not allow for this interpretation. Consider the wording:

"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours...." [Jn. 17:9/NASB]

A distinction is made between two groups. There is the "world" group, and the "given" group. This distinction is demonstrated by the contrasting of "I ask" and "I do not ask". If the elect are merely a subset of the whole, then this distinction becomes illogical. A consistent reading of the text requires a delineation of two separate groups.

Therefore, in John 17:9, "world" refers to reprobates --- all whom the Father has not given to the Son.

My hermeneutic cannot lead to universalism because according to my hermeneutic, “Without faith, God’s justification is ineffectual.”

I apologize if my wording was unclear. Allow me to rephrase.

While I acknowledge that you preach justification by grace through faith, which I heartily applaud, it is my contention that a consistent application of your hermeneutic does not allow for this conclusion. Rather, if "world" (in John 3) really does apply to all people exhaustively, then verse 17 suggests that Christ saves everyone exhaustively.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." [Jn. 3:17/NIV]

On the other hand, if "world" in John 3 refers to the elect, this eliminates the contradiction and allows the passage to flow consistently. Therefore, I would argue that both an explicit and implicit reading of John 3 demands that "world" can mean nothing other than the elect.

 

[Vince53]

The Bible teaches that God loves the world, and that Jesus died for the world, and yet teaches that the world is not reconciled to Him.

Woe unto the world, because of offenses! Matt. 18:7

...and the world knew him not. John 1:10

The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth...John 7:7

Even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive..John 14:17

...Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? John 14:22

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
Jesus makes a distinction between the all-inclusive world and a subset of the world, those who believe in him, but He NEVER refers to that subset as “the world.”

I'm sorry PG, but the text does not allow for this interpretation. Consider the wording:

"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours...." [Jn. 17:9/NASB]

A distinction is made between two groups. There is the "world" group, and the "given" group. This distinction is demonstrated by the contrasting of "I ask" and "I do not ask". If the elect are merely a subset of the whole, then this distinction becomes illogical. A consistent reading of the text requires a delineation of two separate groups.

Therefore, in John 17:9, "world" refers to reprobates --- all whom the Father has not given to the Son.

TimRout,

The text not only allows for the interpretation that I gave; it disallows any other interpretation. In John 17:9, Jesus is not asking, at this point in His life, on behalf of the entire world; He is asking specifically on behalf of those who have believed in Him, a subset of the world at large.

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
My hermeneutic cannot lead to universalism because according to my hermeneutic, “Without faith, God’s justification is ineffectual.”

I apologize if my wording was unclear. Allow me to rephrase.

While I acknowledge that you preach justification by grace through faith, which I heartily applaud, it is my contention that a consistent application of your hermeneutic does not allow for this conclusion. Rather, if "world" (in John 3) really does apply to all people exhaustively, then verse 17 suggests that Christ saves everyone exhaustively.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." [Jn. 3:17/NIV]

On the other hand, if "world" in John 3 refers to the elect, this eliminates the contradiction and allows the passage to flow consistently. Therefore, I would argue that both an explicit and implicit reading of John 3 demands that "world" can mean nothing other than the elect.

John 3:14. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15. so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (NASB, 1995)

There is no contradiction and no need to rewrite John’s gospel in favor of Calvinism. Verse 17 does not suggest that Christ saves everyone, but that God sent Jesus into the world on behalf of everyone that everyone in the world who chooses to believe (v. 15) in Him might be saved.

God’s gift of salvation is universal; man’s belief is not, therefore, not all men are saved. To those who believe in Him and receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God, to the ones believing in His name.

John 1:11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13. who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (NASB, 1995)

In this passage, the Greek verbs translated as came, did not receive, received, and gave are all in the aorist indicative, denoting past action at a point in time. The Greek word translated as believe in verse 12, however, is a present participle denoting continuous belief in the present time. Therefore, linguistically, the phrase “to those who believe in His name” is a qualifying phrase, limiting the action of God’s giving not only to those who received Him, but further to those who believe, and not only at a point in time, but continuously in the present time. This fact is extremely important to the correct interpretation of this passage. God’s gift of salvation, Jesus (John 3:16), came to His own people, the ethnic Jews; however, in disbelief, they as a people, rejected that gift and nailed Jesus to a cross.

Furthermore, the translation of John 3:17 that you gave from the NIV is seriously incorrect. They wrongly translated the Greek words translated as to condemn and to save as infinitives (verbal nouns) to bring the verse into harmony with the Reformed theology of The Committee on Bible Translation which oversaw the work. In truth, however, both Greek words are verbs in the subjunctive mood. A much more accurate translation would be,

John 3:17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; (Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)


Thank you for your participation in this thread; May God richly bless you!

 

[TimRout]

TimRout,

The text not only allows for the interpretation that I gave; it disallows any other interpretation. In John 17:9, Jesus is not asking, at this point in His life, on behalf of the entire world; He is asking specifically on behalf of those who have believed in Him, a subset of the world at large.

Let's consider the text one more time.

"I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours...." [Jn. 17:9/NASB]

Again PG, you're reading your theology into the text. Perhaps it would be meaningful if we slowed down and exegeted this thing a bit more closely.

Yes, Jesus is praying for those who had believed in Him. However, it is erroneous of you to add the word "entire" into your analysis. Jesus did not say, "I do not ask on behalf of the entire world, but only for that subset who believe." Rather, the Lord differentiated the world from those who have been GIVEN to Him by the Father.

As previously established in John 6:37, it is the act of the Father's giving that causes God's chosen people to come to Christ.

There is no contradiction and no need to rewrite John’s gospel in favor of Calvinism. Verse 17 does not suggest that Christ saves everyone, but that God sent Jesus into the world on behalf of everyone that everyone in the world who chooses to believe (v. 15) in Him might be saved.

There is no question John 3 teaches that all who believe on Christ will not perish but have eternal life. The question, then, is why do some people repent and believe unto eternal life? Your answer, if I'm reading you correctly, is "free will". But as we have discussed formerly, "free will" describes a capacity to believe, not a reason for believing.

Can you offer something other than your personal opinion in support of the following contentions?

-The NIV (and perhaps other versions) have been mistranslated by Calvinists.
-The term "world" as seen throughout the New Testament almost always indicates all people everywhere.

God’s gift of salvation is universal; man’s belief is not, therefore, not all men are saved. To those who believe in Him and receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God, to the ones believing in His name.

Again, how does one sustain the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, while making the free decision of man the final arbiter of one's eternal destiny?

Forgive the cliche, but the old Reformed challenge still seems to have gone unanswered.

Imagine that we're standing by the throne of God on Judgment Day. At the Lord's right hand are gathered all the redeemed, robed in white, singing the eternal praises of their Savior and King. And on the left are myriads of the damned, standing at the threshold of hell, screaming out their hatred of God and mourning their outcast state.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that both groups are of roughly equal intelligence, and both have had a similar exposure to the gospel, what makes the redeemed group different than the damned?

This is a simple question for the Calvinist to answer. The difference is, "God's sovereign, saving grace."

But what does the advocate of free will say? Logically, there must be something --- some quality or merit --- that makes the redeemed group better than the condemned. Perhaps they were more philosophically inclined? Perhaps they were more spiritually sensitive? Perhaps they had better genes? However one wishes to characterize it, the saving quality must somehow reside with the individual, since (according to your view) God's enabling prevenient grace has been given to all in identical measure.

 

[Vince53]

We have seen that the Bible teaches the Jesus died for all men, but the world has rejected Him, Nonetheless, God still wants all men to be saved:

...the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost. Luke 19:10

...that the world may believe that You sent Me. John 17:21

... God our Savior... desires all men to be saved 1 Timothy 2:3-4

... not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

...the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14

... I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47