Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[kangaroodort]

My friend,
Even though the Scripture is clear that God's grace is perpetuated based on our condition, it is also clear that this very condition is effected by God: I will give them a heart... Ezekiel 36:26. Had it not been for God to change our hearts, we would have never believed, nor persevered. Even as the Ethiopian cannot change his skin nor the leopard his spots, could we who were accustomed to doing evil, do good. Jeremiah 13:23. To God be the glory from beginning to end!!!

You do realize that these passages look ahead to the new covenant, right? Wouldn't that suggest to you that regeneration is a new covenant reality? If regeneration must precede faith and regeneration is a new covenant promise, how did saints in the OT exercise faith? And what do you make of someone like Cornelius in the NT? He is called "devout" and "God fearing" and God was pleased with his prayers and offerings to the poor (Acts 10). But this is all before Cornelius believed the Gospel. But Calvinism says that we are all God haters prior to regeneration. So are you suggesting that Cornelius was regenerated long before he heard or believed the Gospel message? Are you suggesting that Cornelius was a born again unbeliever for all that time?

 

[kangaroodort]

If you accepted Christ and persevere in His will without God moving you to do so, is there not at least some degree in which you ought to pat yourself on the back?

No, because it would be impossible outside of God's enabling (2 Peter 1:2-11). But this brings up the issue of boasting again. The Bible makes it clear that boasting is excluded because we receive a free and undeserved gift from the hand of God. We trust in God to save us because we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we would not need to trust in Christ to save us, now would we? The nature of faith as excluding boasting doesn't change just because it continues. Perseverance in faith is still a matter of faith.

Now does this mean that it is impossible to boast? Of course not. People boast in all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Just because someone boasts doesn't mean they have a legitimate reason for boasting. And that is the point. I have seen some very boastful Calvinists. But I am told that their theology excludes boasting. How then do they still boast? A Calvinist could boast in the fact that God's choice of them for salvation was the better choice than for them to have been chosen for reprobation (or passed over, or whatever). Just imagine, God's choice of you instead of your neighbor (for example) was in accordance what God's perfect wisdom. Must be hard not to feel a little tinge of pride in that, no? Oh, but I am sure you will come up with some reason why such a boast is still not legitimate. Ok, same goes for Arminianism then.

Paul deals with a similar issue in 1 Cor. 4:6-7. Some were boasting about various giftings or positions. Paul reminds them that they had no basis for boasting because anything they had was received as a gift. You can't boast in something that was given to you as if you earned it. And that is exactly what Paul was saying in Rom. 4. But they were still boasting. So again, it has to do with a legitimate grounds for boasting, and faith cuts off any legitimate grounds for boasting because faith is simple trust in Christ to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: save us.

Consider 1 Cor. 10:13. That says that when a Christian is tempted God provides a way of escape so they can endure the temptation and not give into it. Now suppose one Christian resists temptation but the other one does not. Both were enabled to resist and yet only one did resist. Can that person boast over the one who failed to resist and take the way of escape that God provided in His faithfulness? I suppose so, but that would not be a legitimate grounds for boasting in Scripture. Oh, and in Calvinism I am led to wonder what led the one to resist and the other to fall to the same temptation? Can't be a lack of grace since God was faithful to provide the way of escape for both. So what was it? What made them differ? Hmmmmmm.

 

[kangaroodort]

The issue is not what Wesley believed or what Arminius believed , since most people would not know, and others would not care. The issue is what makes TULIP unacceptable to the majority of Christians. One does not automatically have to resort to Arminianism to recognize the falsity of TULIP.

As I mentioned in another thread, John 1:29 itself demolishes Calvinism.
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Strong's Concordance (2889)
kosmos: order, the world
Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

Calvinism teaches limited atonement (hence the "L") but John 1:29 plainly states that the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world. There is no getting away from that, and no dodging that, to make "the world" mean anything other than what it means -- the world of humanity. So if Christ tasted death for every man, and God now commands ALL MEN everywhere to repent, it means that all can be saved if all will repent.

It does not matter whether Pelagius, or Augustine, or Arminius, or Calvin, or Wesley say something else. The truth is the truth, and the Word of God is the Word of God.

Becaus

If God does not move on them, can a person still choose?

Why would God offer a gift to a person that will never accept it? Or, was the gift offered not to individuals, but mankind as a whole? I think we might need to analyze the difference between the "offer of the gift [of salvation]" and literal atonement for sin.

Sorry, didn't mean to reply to this, but once you hit "reply" I can't figure out a way to get rid of that window.

 

[kangaroodort]

Wow! Amazing point!

Not really. It is a category error. I recommend reading up on the corporate election view to help understand the difference between God's choosing of the patriarchs (and ultimately Christ, the chosen "Seed") as corporate covenant representatives and how we as individuals come to be a part of that corporate body (the covenant people of God). Here is a good place to start: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/

You will find links to articles which give far more detail embedded in the quotes as well. Once you understand the corporate nature of election in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, it will help you see that many of the Calvinist objections here totally miss the mark.

 

[Job8]

OK you want to address the words of Christ on who He died for do you? The question is will you believe what He said?
(Joh 10:11) I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

twin1954 really believes that John chapter 10 cannot be reconciled with John 1:29, or John 3:16, or umpteen Scriptures which clearly state that Christ died for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD. So here is the response based upon the Word of God to show there is no contradiction.

1. Scripture never contradicts itself, and God never contradicts Himself.

2. The Lord Jesus Christ is the propitiation for (1) the sins of His sheep and (2) the sins of the whole world. Please pay close attention: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation (1) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also (2) for the sins of the whole world. (1 Jn 2:1,2).

3. "The whole world" means "the whole world of humanity" and no amount of dodging and weaving can change that fact.
Strong's Concordance
holos: whole, complete
Original Word: ὅλος, η, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: holos
Phonetic Spelling: (hol'-os)
Short Definition: all, the whole, entire
Definition: all, the whole, entire, complete.
Strong's Concordance
kosmos: order, the world
Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

4. Some men will believe and others will not believe (John 3:17-19).
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

5. Those who believe are called Christ's sheep (John 10:11,14,15)
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

6. Those who do not believe are not Christ's sheep (John 10:26)
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

So on one hand Christ took away the sin of the world. On the other hand only those who believe on Him become His sheep, and therefore Christ lays down His life EFFECTUALLY only for the sheep. Why is there a perceived conflict? Eternal life is offered all, but all will not repent and believe. Therefore all do not become sheep. THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN LIMITED ATONEMENT BUT RATHER A LIMITED RESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL. And that too is found in Scripture (Mark 16:15,16): And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Once again we see that TULIP, Limited Atonement, and Calvinism fail to give due respect to every Scripture, and try to dismiss the truth that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. That is very serious opposition to God and to the Gospel.

 

[royal priest]

You do realize that these passages look ahead to the new covenant, right? Wouldn't that suggest to you that regeneration is a new covenant reality? If regeneration must precede faith and regeneration is a new covenant promise, how did saints in the OT exercise faith? And what do you make of someone like Cornelius in the NT? He is called "devout" and "God fearing" and God was pleased with his prayers and offerings to the poor (Acts 10). But this is all before Cornelius believed the Gospel. But Calvinism says that we are all God haters prior to regeneration. So are you suggesting that Cornelius was regenerated long before he heard or believed the Gospel message? Are you suggesting that Cornelius was a born again unbeliever for all that time?

A man cannot truly fear God lest the law of God is first written on his heart, thus causing him to realize His offenses against God. In sending Peter to Cornelius as a witness, God was answering the promise of Isaiah 55:6. The fact that Cornelius, feared God was evidence that regeneration had begun even prior to Peter's witness. For all we know, Cornelius may have first received the Gospel in Old Covenant terms which, in itself, would have provided sufficient knowledge to give him eternal life.

 

[royal priest]

No, because it would be impossible outside of God's enabling (2 Peter 1:2-11). But this brings up the issue of boasting again. The Bible makes it clear that boasting is excluded because we receive a free and undeserved gift from the hand of God. We trust in God to save us because we cannot save ourselves. If we could save ourselves, we would not need to trust in Christ to save us, now would we? The nature of faith as excluding boasting doesn't change just because it continues. Perseverance in faith is still a matter of faith.

Now does this mean that it is impossible to boast? Of course not. People boast in all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Just because someone boasts doesn't mean they have a legitimate reason for boasting. And that is the point. I have seen some very boastful Calvinists. But I am told that their theology excludes boasting. How then do they still boast? A Calvinist could boast in the fact that God's choice of them for salvation was the better choice than for them to have been chosen for reprobation (or passed over, or whatever). Just imagine, God's choice of you instead of your neighbor (for example) was in accordance what God's perfect wisdom. Must be hard not to feel a little tinge of pride in that, no? Oh, but I am sure you will come up with some reason why such a boast is still not legitimate. Ok, same goes for Arminianism then.

Paul deals with a similar issue in 1 Cor. 4:6-7. Some were boasting about various giftings or positions. Paul reminds them that they had no basis for boasting because anything they had was received as a gift. You can't boast in something that was given to you as if you earned it. And that is exactly what Paul was saying in Rom. 4. But they were still boasting. So again, it has to do with a legitimate grounds for boasting, and faith cuts off any legitimate grounds for boasting because faith is simple trust in Christ to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: save us.

Consider 1 Cor. 10:13. That says that when a Christian is tempted God provides a way of escape so they can endure the temptation and not give into it. Now suppose one Christian resists temptation but the other one does not. Both were enabled to resist and yet only one did resist. Can that person boast over the one who failed to resist and take the way of escape that God provided in His faithfulness? I suppose so, but that would not be a legitimate grounds for boasting in Scripture. Oh, and in Calvinism I am led to wonder what led the one to resist and the other to fall to the same temptation? Can't be a lack of grace since God was faithful to provide the way of escape for both. So what was it? What made them differ? Hmmmmmm.

We may plan to avoid temptation, but it matters not. What matters is God's plan for us to avoid temptation. Matthew 6:13; Proverbs 16:9

 

[Leevo]

Leevo:

I got saved without hearing the Gospel, I did not know the Gospel 1%, and I got saved, converted and filled with His Spirit.

6 months after I got saved, I started attending a Baptist Church, and the Baptist Pastor kept asking me are you sure you never heard the Gospel? I told him I never did, and he explained the Gospel, and I was shocked.

You must have heard enough to be saved. You can't be saved without hearing the gospel, in both Arminianism and Calvinism.

 

[royal priest]

Leevo:

I got saved without hearing the Gospel, I did not know the Gospel 1%, and I got saved, converted and filled with His Spirit.

6 months after I got saved, I started attending a Baptist Church, and the Baptist Pastor kept asking me are you sure you never heard the Gospel? I told him I never did, and he explained the Gospel, and I was shocked.

Not possible my friend. John 20:31

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Not possible my friend. John 20:31

I was given the rick warren book, promise driven life, I was brought to my end by the Lord, I went on my knees, and asked God to help and forgive me. I was saved, and got baptized soon after.

6 months later, I heard the Gospel, till then I thought you could work your way into heaven. I didn't know that Jesus paid for my sins on the cross, nor did I understand propitiation, till the Gospel was shared with me.

I was definitely saved, given faith, converted, received the Holy Spirit, Baptized, then heard the Good News.

Rick Warren is fluff, and I did not hear the gospel prior to conversion.

 

[royal priest]

I was given the rick warren book, promise driven life, I was brought to my end by the Lord, I went on my knees, and asked God to help and forgive me. I was saved, and got baptized soon after.

6 months later, I heard the Gospel, till then I thought you could work your way into heaven. I didn't know that Jesus paid for my sins on the cross, nor did I understand propitiation, till the Gospel was shared with me.

I was definitely saved, given faith, converted, received the Holy Spirit, Baptized, then heard the Good News.

Rick Warren is fluff, and I did not hear the gospel prior to conversion.

I have not read Rick Warren's book. According your testimony here, this book moved you to ask God for help and forgiveness. Then you say you were saved. I ask: saved from what, unto what, and according to what; If not the Gospel?

 

[twin1954]

A man cannot truly fear God lest the law of God is first written on his heart, thus causing him to realize His offenses against God. In sending Peter to Cornelius as a witness, God was answering the promise of Isaiah 55:6. The fact that Cornelius, feared God was evidence that regeneration had begun even prior to Peter's witness. For all we know, Cornelius may have first received the Gospel in Old Covenant terms which, in itself, would have provided sufficient knowledge to give him eternal life.

What you have given is a twist on the words of Christ. What you have given makes what He says to those Jews who were not His sheep to be you are not my sheep because you believe not. But that isn't what it says is it? No the Lord plainly told them that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. You may fool some folks with such misdirection but not many. You are the one who is not taking the Scriptures as they are. I knew that you would twist it and how you would twist it to fit your theology. It is sad that you make such a big claim about believing the Scriptures but you don't believe them when they destroy your theology.

Moreover the whole world doesn't mean everybody in the world. It simply means all over the world. That is an entirely legitimate interpretation that isn't twisting the words of the Scriptures.

 

[twin1954]

God does have a chosen people in the New Testament, like I said I agree that there is an elect. Where we differ is who that is. I think it is the believers that God foreknew would believe and so he foreordained them to eternal life. I gather you still don't grasp that I do believe in an elect of God, I just disagree with you on how they were chosen.

The problem with this is that it makes God to learn something from His foreknowledge and respond to what He learns. That makes God's omniscience a partial omniscience and makes His to change with what He learns. We know from the Scriptures that isn't true. It is actually akin to open theism.

 

[twin1954]

Please note that the main purpose of choosing Israel was to bring Messiah to the world:
Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:4,5).

This is partially why God chose the Jews to be sure but no the whole reason. As usual you didn't give the rest of the passage and therefore use it out of its context.

(Rom 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:


(Rom 9:7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.


(Rom 9:8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


(Rom 9:9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.


(Rom 9:10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;


(Rom 9:11) (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


(Rom 9:12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.


(Rom 9:13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


(Rom 9:14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


(Rom 9:15) 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.


(Rom 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

He tells the Jews, who are clearly a typical people as seen by Rom. 9; Gal. 3:7-14, 5:16; Eph. 2:12-19; Heb. 9:1-10, the reason that He chose them:
(Deu 7:6) For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.


(Deu 7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:


(Deu 7:8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

There is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. Rom. 2:28-29 One was a type and picture of the other. When God speaks to Israel in the Old Testament He is speaking, in type, to His chosen in all generations.

(Deu 7:9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

1. If "chosen people" meant chosen for salvation then EVERY JEW WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED at the coming of Christ. But in fact, the majority of Jews rejected Him. So there goes your theory of election.

That is utter nonsense. Again you do err not knowing the Scriptures. Salvation was never by bloodlines it has always been by Christ and faith in Him. We clearly read in Gal. 3:8 that the Gospel was preached to Abraham. It was preached as well to Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:15 and was progressively made clear throughout the whole of the Old Testament. The Jews rejected Christ because it was ordained that they did and because if they hadn't there would have been no salvation for anyone. Acts 2:22-24

2. If God were choosing men to be saved in the New Testament, HE WOULD CHOOSE ALL TO BE SAVED as He tells us in His Word (1 Tim:2:1-4).

And once more you take a passage out of its context to prove your pretext. Actually loo at 1Tim. 2:1-3 and you will se who Paul is speaking of. He desires that all kinds of men be saved. If he means every man ever to be born then the Scriptures are not consistent in their teaching and we of all men have been duped and are yet in our sin. You deny the teaching of the Scriptures in Rom. 9, Eph. 1, and many other places in order to interpret a few passages of the Scriptures according to your natural theology. When you read the Scriptures you start with man and work up to God but the Scriptures never do that. They always start with God and work down to man. Your man centered religion denies the truth of the Scriptures.

Actually no Gentile was shut out of Israel, if you will kindly read the OT. Indeed "the strangers" were to be welcomed by the Israelities if they exercised faith in Yahweh Elohim.

If they were circumcised and became a part of Israel yes. But you deny the clear fact that none but the Jews had any part in the atonement made by symbol in the Old Testament sacrifices. Perhaps you need to do a real study of the book of Hebrews.

The simple fact is that the Old Testament sacrifices pointed to the one sacrifice of Christ and as they were all for a particular people alone so was the sacrifice of Christ. The Scriptures never speak of the atonement of Christ as making something possible they always speak of His atoning work as accomplishing something. A possible atonement is nothing but a philosophical construct in order to deny the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

As already pointed out with many Scriptures, the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world, Christ tasted death for every man, and Jesus is the PROPITIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD (1 Jn 2:1,2): My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Calvinistic doctrine is actually a perversion of the truth, and if limited atonement is exposed as a false teaching (as shown above), then the whole edifice crumbles.

You don't use many passages of the Scriptures you use the same ones over and over again. You uses them as though they set the tone for how we are to interpret all the rest of the Scriptures. But we know that each one you use, especially the ones which have the word world in them, can just as easily and legitimately be interpreted to mean people all over the world. You twist the Scriptures in order to make them fit your man centered theology.

 

[kangaroodort]

A man cannot truly fear God lest the law of God is first written on his heart, thus causing him to realize His offenses against God. In sending Peter to Cornelius as a witness, God was answering the promise of Isaiah 55:6. The fact that Cornelius, feared God was evidence that regeneration had begun even prior to Peter's witness. For all we know, Cornelius may have first received the Gospel in Old Covenant terms which, in itself, would have provided sufficient knowledge to give him eternal life.

So you affirm that the promise of regeneration in the OT does look forward to the New Covenant? Well, then how do you explain OT saints trusting in God? If regeneration is a New Covenant promise and reality and OT saints were able to trust in God without it, that means your insistence that regeneration must precede and cause faith is plainly false. That doesn't mean that prevenient enabling grace is not necessary, it just means that this enabling grace is not regeneration.

Cornelius had not received the Gospel until Peter came. The reason Peter came was to tell Cornelius how to be saved (Acts 11:14). Paul says that we are saved by the washing of "regeneration" and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Cornelius did not receive the Spirit until Peter preached to him. If he was already regenerated, then he was already saved since we are saved by regeneration (Titus 3:5). Regeneration is a new covenant promise, not an Old Covenant promise. One must believe in Christ to transition into the New Covenant (John 5:24). And this is very important: the Bible is clear that all of the promises of the new covenant are received by faith. That includes the promise of regeneration through the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Gal 3:5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

Gal 3:14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Gal 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
Gal 3:27-29 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And Gal. 4 makes it clear that Paul is discussing the transition for the Old Covenant to the New. We become children of God through faith because through faith we receive the Spirit of adoption through whom we receive new life and through whom we inherit all the promises of the New covenant (Gal. 3:26-47).

Now I don't necessarily disagree that Cornelius was saved in some sense under the old dispensation since he was still trusting in God. But he was not regenerated as regeneration is received through faith in Christ and the reception of the Spirit of life and adoption through whom all the promises of the new covenant become ours. This important historical transition from faith in God under the Old Covenant to faith in Christ in the New Covenant is what is behind a lot of the confusion regarding passages in John that Calvinists like to appeal to in order to support unconditional election and irresistible grace (like John 6, 8, 10, etc.). Here is a brief article on that: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...sages-from-johns-gospel-to-support-calvinism/

And here is a longer and much more detailed article that looks much more heavily at the OT data as well: http://evangelicalarminians.org/fil...r of Faith and Election in John's Gospel..pdf

Even some popular Calvinists today recognize how weak the Calvinist case is for regeneration preceding faith in Scripture: https://arminianperspectives.wordpr...-nature-of-preveninet-grace-the-ordo-salutis/

 

[kangaroodort]

You don't use many passages of the Scriptures you use the same ones over and over again. You uses them as though they set the tone for how we are to interpret all the rest of the Scriptures. But we know that each one you use, especially the ones which have the word world in them, can just as easily and legitimately be interpreted to mean people all over the world. You twist the Scriptures in order to make them fit your man centered theology.

No they can't. First, passages that speak of God's love for all the world or Christ being given to all the world have nothing in the context to limit that application in anyway. Second, even if we buy into the idea that it means "Jews and Gentiles" that still includes everyone. The only way you can make your case is to then take another step to "only some Jews and Gentiles" and that is wholly illegitimate. You can't turn "world" into "some" in those contexts and the most authoritative Greek lexicon says that "world" means "all humanity" in those passages. In 1 John 2:2 it clearly means the whole world. Does that include Jews and Greeks? Of course, because it includes everyone. But that is not even an issue John is addressing. That epistle is not concerned with the Jew/Gentile issue, and that verse has nothing at all to do with distinctions between Jews and Gentiles as people groups. It has to do with distinctions between believers and non-believers.

The only other use of "whole world" in 1 John is in 5:19 which has reference to the entire sinful world that is under control of the evil one. But Calvinists ignore this and focus on 1 John 2:15 and try to cast doubt on 1 John 2:2 meaning all of humanity because 1 John 2:15 says we should not love the world or anything in it. But then John makes it very clear that he means the sinful desires and lusts of the world. But even there, John is describing the sins of the world that we should not embrace, and in 1 John 2:2 John says that Christ died for the "sins of the whole world." Sins are committed by people. They are not autonomous entities.

So the "whole world" lies under the enemy's control and it is this sinful world that believers should not embrace, and it is the sins of this whole world that Jesus made propitiation for in His death.

John 12 is even more decisive and perfectly parallels John 3:16-18,

"I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:46-48)

The implications of Jesus language are unavoidable. He came to save the world which includes those who will ultimately reject Him and be condemned as a result. What reason does Jesus give for not judging those who reject Him? Because he did not come to judge "the world" but to save it. That means that they must be part of the world He came to save, otherwise his words lose all meaning. Jesus came to save those who would ultimately reject Him and be condemned as a result.

Now compare this passage with the specific language of John 3:16-18,

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

The parallel language is striking and deliberate. We have every reason to see world as all inclusive and no good reason to see it as limited in some contrived way as so many Calvinists insist.

And again, even if the Calvinist wants to say that world means "Jews and Gentiles" that still includes everyone. Even James White had to admit this in a debate. When he was pressed on this he ran off to Revelation which doesn't even use the term "world" and is just a description of those who are saved being saved from every tribe and nation. That text does nothing to support his case, but it does illustrate that even James White is prone to "jump" to other passages of Scripture to try to support his interpretations, something he often ridicules Arminians for doing with regards to looking at John 12:32 to help understand John 6:44, etc.

 

[kangaroodort]

No they can't. First, passages that speak of God's love for all the world or Christ being given to all the world have nothing in the context to limit that application in anyway. Second, even if we buy into the idea that it means "Jews and Gentiles" that still includes everyone. The only way you can make your case is to then take another step to "only some Jews and Gentiles" and that is wholly illegitimate. You can't turn "world" into "some" in those contexts and the most authoritative Greek lexicon says that "world" means "all humanity" in those passages. In 1 John 2:2 it clearly means the whole world. Does that include Jews and Greeks? Of course, because it includes everyone. But that is not even an issue John is addressing. That epistle is not concerned with the Jew/Gentile issue, and that verse has nothing at all to do with distinctions between Jews and Gentiles as people groups. It has to do with distinctions between believers and non-believers.

The only other use of "whole world" in 1 John is in 5:19 which has reference to the entire sinful world that is under control of the evil one. But Calvinists ignore this and focus on 1 John 2:15 and try to cast doubt on 1 John 2:2 meaning all of humanity because 1 John 2:15 says we should not love the world or anything in it. But then John makes it very clear that he means the sinful desires and lusts of the world. But even there, John is describing the sins of the world that we should not embrace, and in 1 John 2:2 John says that Christ died for the "sins of the whole world." Sins are committed by people. They are not autonomous entities.

So the "whole world" lies under the enemy's control and it is this sinful world that believers should not embrace, and it is the sins of this whole world that Jesus made propitiation for in His death.

John 12 is even more decisive and perfectly parallels John 3:16-18,

"I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (John 12:46-48)

The implications of Jesus language are unavoidable. He came to save the world which includes those who will ultimately reject Him and be condemned as a result. What reason does Jesus give for not judging those who reject Him? Because he did not come to judge "the world" but to save it. That means that they must be part of the world He came to save, otherwise his words lose all meaning. Jesus came to save those who would ultimately reject Him and be condemned as a result.

Now compare this passage with the specific language of John 3:16-18,

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

The parallel language is striking and deliberate. We have every reason to see world as all inclusive and no good reason to see it as limited in some contrived way as so many Calvinists insist.

And again, even if the Calvinist wants to say that world means "Jews and Gentiles" that still includes everyone. Even James White had to admit this in a debate. When he was pressed on this he ran off to Revelation which doesn't even use the term "world" and is just a description of those who are saved being saved from every tribe and nation. That text does nothing to support his case, but it does illustrate that even James White is prone to "jump" to other passages of Scripture to try to support his interpretations, something he often ridicules Arminians for doing with regards to looking at John 12:32 to help understand John 6:44, etc.

I love how James White says we "know" this is how John "consistently" uses "kosmos" and then references two Scriptures that do not even use the word Kosmos to prove his point!! Sounds like reading his traditions into the texts to me.

 

[kangaroodort]

You don't use many passages of the Scriptures you use the same ones over and over again. You uses them as though they set the tone for how we are to interpret all the rest of the Scriptures. But we know that each one you use, especially the ones which have the word world in them, can just as easily and legitimately be interpreted to mean people all over the world. You twist the Scriptures in order to make them fit your man centered theology.

And isn't it interesting that there are so many scholarly 4 point Calvinists out there who reject limited atonement? They affirm Calvinism on every other point and yet still reject limited atonement. Is that because they are just twisting Scripture for the sake of their "man centered theology"? But I thought Calvinism wasn't man centered? Hmmmmm. It seems to me that it could only be because they recognize the Biblical evidence for unlimited provisional atonement is overwhelming, and for that reason they are willing to live with inconsistencies in their system for the sake of being true to the Biblical testimony. Kudos to them. By the way, there is also a pretty hot debate out there among Calvinists concerning whether or not John Calvin even held to limited atonement.

 

[kangaroodort]

The problem with this is that it makes God to learn something from His foreknowledge and respond to what He learns. That makes God's omniscience a partial omniscience and makes His to change with what He learns. We know from the Scriptures that isn't true. It is actually akin to open theism.

Why do you keep repeating this already refuted point? If God knows all things from eternity, then he does not learn about anything. There was never a time He did not know all things.

 

[Job8]

You twist the Scriptures in order to make them fit your man centered theology.

MAN-CENTERED THEOLOGY = DOCTRINES OF MEN = DOCTRINES OF CALVIN AND AUGUSTINE.