How do you differentiate?

[theseed]

No doubt the purpose was to save all, hence "should not perish" meaning some will perish. "should" is me'llo in Greek, Strong #3195.

Your literal translation left out whosoever, which completely changes the verse. Another translation can read:

"God love the world so much that he gave his Only Son, so that any one who believes in him should not perish..."

Some will perish any ways, even though God gave his Son the whold world.

 

[theseed]

Youngs Literal Translation

John 3
16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

 

[Reformationist]

His take on the verses in question is similar to mine in that he emphasizes the exhortational aspect of this verse, in that Christ is calling men to himself and showing them that they all can approach Him in faith (which, of course, we know is a gift given by God to some and not others).

ken

Ken, that was a very insightful post and I appreciate your knowledge on the matter. This last sentence, however, confuses me. It seems a bit incongruous to say that Christ is saying "all can approach Him in faith" and couple that admission with the knowledge that faith is a gift given to some and not others. If faith is the way in which all can approach Him then would all need faith to do so. If this gift is given only to some then it seems readily apparent that not all can come. Since not all can come, because not all are given the gift of faith, it seems disharmonious to say that Christ says all can come.

Can you see why I'm confused? I guess I just don't buy into the theory that Christ would offer an exhortation to certain people knowing it would fall on deaf ears. It seems a bit wasteful, not to mention conflictory to an understanding that the response is the result of the efficacy of the call. That would be akin to someone going into a morgue and telling all the cadavers that they could partake of a free buffet of food. Kinda sensless in my opinion and frivolity is not an attribute I ascribe to the Lord.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

It's universalist in that God wants t save every body, if you read my other posts, you will see that the world includes all those against God. John 3.16 says God gave his Son so everbody would be saved, but everybody will not necesarily believe (should believe = might believe)

If God is the one who makes salvation dependent on belief then belief must be something that springs forth unassisted from the purveyor of that attribute, right? Belief cannot be something that God gives to a person in that case. If that is true then it credits the creation with having the desireable attribute of belief. Do you believe that salvitic belief is something that those who believe naturally have or did that faith come from an external source?

Also, since God knows who will and who won't believe, don't you think God is setting Himself up for disappointment if He desires something to come to pass that He knows ahead of time won't come to pass? That would be like a 40 year old man spending the rest of his life seriously desiring that he was 17 again, and doing everything he can to make that happen even though he knows it won't happen.

God bless

 

[II Paradox II]

Ken, that was a very insightful post and I appreciate your knowledge on the matter. This last sentence, however, confuses me. It seems a bit incongruous to say that Christ is saying "all can approach Him in faith" and couple that admission with the knowledge that faith is a gift given to some and not others. If faith is the way in which all can approach Him then would all need faith to do so. If this gift is given only to some then it seems readily apparent that not all can come. Since not all can come, because not all are given the gift of faith, it seems disharmonious to say that Christ says all can come.

Can you see why I'm confused? I guess I just don't buy into the theory that Christ would offer an exhortation to certain people knowing it would fall on deaf ears.

A few comments:

1) Ultimately, I hold that there are paradoxes surrounding the issue of election and human will that cannot be reconciled this side of heaven. The scriptures give us quandries like the one we are dealing with without really giving us a clear way out. As a result, we are left with a few options: formulate principles to interpret these verses, such as the one you articluated, reject the doctrine of infallible scripture, or recognize that life is complex and some things we cannot answer in this life, though we can get close.

2) It's interesting that you hold to a principle such that Christ cannot offer something to people unless they can respond innately to it. I would submit that this is actually closer to an Arminian position than a Calvinist one. The only difference is that they would maintain that God is offering his salvation to all but the atonement is conditional. You are applying the principle as well, but since you have an unconditional atonement you limit the scope of the offer to reconcile your principle with the reality that not everyone exercises faith. I think I stand on more solid historic reformed ground here in rejecting the principle that forces me into one of those two options.

3) you may want to read the following article as it deals with this issue and some related matters (though not john 3:16 specifically)
http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Offer.html

ken

 

[Reformationist]

No doubt the purpose was to save all, hence "should not perish" meaning some will perish. "should" is me'llo in Greek, Strong #3195.

theseed, this makes absolutely no sense. You can't take qualified portions of a verse and use them in an unqualified manner. John 3:16 clearly shows who won't perish, those who believe. None of those who believe will perish so the conclusion you draw is illogical. "Should not perish" isn't an indication that some of those that God desired to live actually don't. "Should not perish" is a reference to God's purpose in sending His Son. IOW, God sent His Son so that whosoever believes wouldn't perish. If He hadn't sent His Son then everyone would perish. We're talking of the omnipotence of God. He always accomplishes His goals. He is never frustrated. His plans are never thwarted. God acting for the purpose of accomplishing something means that that purpose will be achieved. It's not like when we, impotent creations that we are, say, I send my child to school so that he'll get a good education. We have no power to ensure that his presence at school will ensure a good education. We are not sovereign though. God is capable of ensuring that the reason He sent His Son will be successful, and not just in the general sense. Christ's death was successful in accomplishing exactly what it was purposed to accomplish. It could have accomplished more, had that been the intent.

Your literal translation left out whosoever, which completely changes the verse.

Again, taking words out of context to contemplate a possible meaning is pointless. It's not "whosoever." It's "whosoever believes." This qualification doesn't change the number of people. It clarifies it. If I said, "Whosoever can come to my party" the only unlimited aspect of that is who I will allow at my party. It doesn't dictate who is personally able to come to my party. Now, if I say, "whosoever brings a gift can come to my party" then I have effectively limited the acceptable attendees to those who "bring a gift." John 3:16 is given in the same vein. God is not saying, "Hey, whosoever will be saved by Christ's death." He is saying, "whosoever will believe will not perish." This is not an unknown number of people. God knows who will believe and who won't. It's for those people that Christ was sent and died.

Another translation can read:

"God love the world so much that he gave his Only Son, so that any one who believes in him should not perish..."

Some will perish any ways, even though God gave his Son the whold world.

If you believe that the purpose God's purpose for sending His Son to die was to atone for the sins of the entirity of mankind, past, present and future, and accomplish their salvation then God has been severely frustrated by His own design. I truly pity anyone who feels that God is so frivolous that He would set out to accomplish something only to fail in achieving His own desires.

 

[Reformationist]

Youngs Literal Translation

John 3
16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Even the translation that you quote shows the error in your view. Look:

John 3:16
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

"THAT!!!" is a very operative word. Here is a sentence along the same lines:

I paid my electric bill, THAT my electricity would not be cut off.

What was my purpose in paying my electric bill? Was it so that my car didn't get broken into? Was it so that my dinner would be tasty? Of course not. My purpose in paying my electric bill was keeping my electric bill from getting cut off.

I even clarified who's electricity I was trying to avoid getting cut off, MINE.

So, in John 3:16, The verse says:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

What was God's purpose in sending His Son? You can't say it was so that all of mankind would have everlasting life. It wasn't. It's clear. He sent His Son so that "whoever believes in Him" should not perish. Did He send His Son so that those who don't believe in Him won't perish? Of course not. God's act of sending His Son His action of love towards someone. If "world" truly means everyone, then why would God limit the benefits of His Son's death to only those who would believe? "World" is clearly limited because the obvious purpose for which Christ was sent is limited. There is a parallel in that verse. It's the parallel of "those whom God loves" and "those who believe in Him." They're one and the same.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

A few comments:

1) Ultimately, I hold that there are paradoxes surrounding the issue of election and human will that cannot be reconciled this side of heaven. The scriptures give us quandries like the one we are dealing with without really giving us a clear way out. As a result, we are left with a few options: formulate principles to interpret these verses, such as the one you articluated, reject the doctrine of infallible scripture, or recognize that life is complex and some things we cannot answer in this life, though we can get close.

Well, as useful as that recognition of our finiteness might be, I must say that I cannot cease to seek the answers on that basis, though I appreciate your wisdom.

2) It's interesting that you hold to a principle such that Christ cannot offer something to people unless they can respond innately to it. I would submit that this is actually closer to an Arminian position than a Calvinist one. The only difference is that they would maintain that God is offering his salvation to all but the atonement is conditional. You are applying the principle as well, but since you have an unconditional atonement you limit the scope of the offer to reconcile your principle with the reality that not everyone exercises faith. I think I stand on more solid historic reformed ground here in rejecting the principle that forces me into one of those two options.

I don't understand. You see similarity between a view that espouses a universal offer of salvation with a condition for atonement to be found in the creation and a view that espouses an atonement that is applied based on the plan of God through the death of Christ?

For the record, I am not aware that I ever said Christ "cannot" offer something. I said I didn't understand why Christ "would" offer an exhortation to certain people knowing it would fall on deaf ears. Christ "can" do anything that is in line with His nature. This, of course, easily segways into what Christ can and cannot do and to avoid that let me just say that the only thing that Christ cannot do is break the law of non-contradiction.

3) you may want to read the following article as it deals with this issue and some related matters (though not john 3:16 specifically)
http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Offer.html

ken

Thanks for the url. I'll check it out.

God bless,
Don

 

[theseed]

Even the translation that you quote shows the error in your view. Look:

John 3:16
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

"THAT!!!" is a very operative word. Here is a sentence along the same lines:

I paid my electric bill, THAT my electricity would not be cut off.

What was my purpose in paying my electric bill? Was it so that my car didn't get broken into? Was it so that my dinner would be tasty? Of course not. My purpose in paying my electric bill was keeping my electric bill from getting cut off.

I even clarified who's electricity I was trying to avoid getting cut off, MINE.

So, in John 3:16, The verse says:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

What was God's purpose in sending His Son? You can't say it was so that all of mankind would have everlasting life. It wasn't. It's clear. He sent His Son so that "whoever believes in Him" should not perish. Did He send His Son so that those who don't believe in Him won't perish? Of course not. God's act of sending His Son His action of love towards someone. If "world" truly means everyone, then why would God limit the benefits of His Son's death to only those who would believe? "World" is clearly limited because the obvious purpose for which Christ was sent is limited. There is a parallel in that verse. It's the parallel of "those whom God loves" and "those who believe in Him." They're one and the same.

God bless

You err because you leave out why God sent his Son, the first 5 words "Because God so loved the World. I did not pick this verse b/c it supported my view, I picked b/c it was the literal translation, and why do so many translate it with whosoever? And it is clear from context, as I have pointed out that John (perhaps 56 times) uses the word "world" to to mean all those against God. And at one time all humanity is against God.

The verse means that "Because God love the World, so he have his only Son, so that those who believe would not perish, but have life-everlasting."

We read in John that the world does not recieve Christ, so then how why does God send his to save those that reject him? They can't, that his why they must be born again, born from above. You yourself, believe that we can not except God unless we are regenerated do you not?

 

[Reformationist]

You err because you leave out why God sent his Son, the first 5 words "Because God so loved the World.

Unfortunately you are confusing God's motivation for sending His Son with His purpose for sending His Son. For instance, if I were to feel sorrow for the sufferings of another person I may be compelled to send them money for food. In that case my motivation for sending money would be the sorrow I felt for their hardships, whereas the money I send would be purposed to relieve that suffering. I didn't leave it out because I don't see the love which motivated God to send His Son to die as something that is separable from the purpose for which He sent Him. God loved the world (whatever the word means to you) and because of that love He sent His Son to atone for their sins.

I did not pick this verse b/c it supported my view, I picked b/c it was the literal translation, and why do so many translate it with whosoever?

I don't know why they interpret it that way. I imagine it conveys the meaning of the text even if it isn't a literal translation. Why do you think so many translate it as "whosoever?"

And it is clear from context, as I have pointed out that John (perhaps 56 times) uses the word "world" to to mean all those against God. And at one time all humanity is against God.

I don't think anything about your view is clearly derived from the context of any part of Scripture so I'm not sure what you think posting 56 different verses wherein the word "world" is used proves. Regardless of the individual applications of the word, there are numerous and varied uses of the word throughout the Gospel. I have not checked but I think it would be highly unlikely that everytime the word "world" is used in John it means "all those against God.

The verse means that "Because God love the World, so he have his only Son, so that those who believe would not perish, but have life-everlasting."

I agree completely. God gave His Son so that those who believe will not perish but have everlasting life. He didn't give it to atone for the sins of those who don't believe.

We read in John that the world does not recieve Christ, so then how why does God send his to save those that reject him?

He doesn't.

They can't, that his why they must be born again, born from above. You yourself, believe that we can not except God unless we are regenerated do you not?

Absolutely. I have not disagreed with this once. I have questioned why you keep bringing this point up in this thread but I haven't disagreed. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "born again" but that is a separate issue that is best suited for a different thread.

God bless

 

[theseed]

I have not checked but I think it would be highly unlikely that everytime the word "world" is used in John it means "all those against God.

You are right Reformist, not everytime but many times, we see that Christ is not of this world, and the world is opposite of Christ, dark and sinful and blind. But if you have the time, you can read all 57 verses with the word "world" and only 2 don't have to do with a comparison of Christ vs. the world. I have found this exegesis to be beneficial in helping me understand the entire Gospel. Since John's Gospel interwove so many themes, it must be taken has a whole, it gives a message as a whole. It is a wholistic work.

John 1:9
The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[ 1:9 Or This was the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world]

Jesus gives light to every man, and came into the world, and gave light to every man into the world.




The world did not recognize hime, or more accurately, did not recieve him. This is the first of a few verses that show that the world is those against God.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Christ takes away the sins of the world

John 3
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[1] "

Here born again (Greek for anonthen) means born from above also, Reformist can not udnerstand why this matters. But I will explain, and show shortly that if your born from above, then you don't belong to this world, I have explained how being born from above to Reformanist, but he still retorts they they are unrelated.

John
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[6] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever 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

Lets Look at John 3.16 in context, it is pivitol it connects both halves of the chapter. Here we see that men hate the light, and earlier we read that the world does not accept the ligtht (men = world). Doesn't men usualy mean humanity? Look at 1.9-10 again. Do you see how John likes to uses opposites in his Gospel? Light vs Dark, being born in the world verses being born from above? When we are born again, we are born from above, John intends both meanings in chapter 3, so again I point out how being born again relates to the world. All verses NIV.

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Again, Jesus is the ligth, but men love darkness, they don't love Christ.
we learn that the world is against God, they hate Christ, in John, you get be for God and against Christ, there is no middle ground. You believe and are saved or you don't and remained condemned.

John 4:42
They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world

."

Here, the Samaritans believe he is the savior of the world.
Chapter: John 4 In context: John 4:41-43)

John 6:14
After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world."

Again, Christ came into the world, he his The Prophet; I hope by now, you can tell that John uses "world" very carefully, if fact, it is common knoledge by scholars that John picks many words and phrases to have deeper meanings then what they have at face value. For example, "come and see" occurs many times, and means more than seeing but is an invitation to enter into a relationship with Christ.

John 6:33
For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Again, Jeus is the life-giving bread, just has he was the life-giving water in Chapter 4; Now, I still have not made it clear that the world includes those against God but will.

 

[theseed]

Part 2

John 7



4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." 5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. 7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.

The world hates Christ, again, like in 1.10, they do not recieve him. Nicodemus acted in secret and so came in the dark, Jesus will not stay in secret. Becasue he is the light. Are you seing a pattern to John's writing style? He loves symbolism.

John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Again Jesus is the light, he helps men see the truth, by exposing their deeds. Men come into the light to have "thier deeds reproved' or to repent.

John 8:23
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Who is he taling to here? He is talking to the rightous Pharisees, they are rightous in that they keep the Law better than anyone else. Yet they are of this world? They are against Christ and therefore against God. Jesus is not of this world. Since God gave his only son to the world, how can we be claim to be from above like Christ, we are born again and born from above if we believe in Christ.

John 8:26
"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

Again, Christ is talking to the Pharisees, who according to the Law are rightous. Christ tells what he hears from the Father to the world, who are Jesus words for? Do we withold them from everone? Or do we tell the whole world? Perhaps this exegesis will reveal that.

Chapter: John 8 In context: John 8:25-27)

John 9:5
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Jesus is in the world but not of the world. Did you know the he is the light of the world?

John 9:39
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

Again Jesus is the light to help us see, now we see that he came into the world for the help the blind see and the seeing to come blind? What does this mean? Look at vers 41, the ones that see are the ones who have sin. he came that "the blind might see" (KJV) this is not 100%; this is the subjuctive again here. And has been and will be talked about in a different post.

John 10:36
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

The word "sent" is usually used, but "gave" was used in John 3.16. Jesus was never apart of this world, but we were.

John 11.9

Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light.

Jesus said this because he was going back to where he almost got stoned, he wanted to vist Lazurus family and raised him from the dead. He has to stay in the world so that there is light.



This is the light that shined in darkness, but darkness could not over come it. hence it went against the ligth, just like the world. This is the true light that lights everyman (1.9) Those that recieved him were not born of blood, flesh but of God (John 1.10)

John 11:27
"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ,[ 11:27 Or Messiah] the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

Again Christ is the light in that came into the world

 

[theseed]

Part 3

John 12:19
So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!"

To us this seems like a hypberpole or an exageration at face value, and I would say that is right. In ch. 11; the high priest prophesied that Christ should so that they did not lose the whole nation to Jesus. hence the many people did follow Christ.

John 12:25
The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

We must hate our life in this world to have eternal life, again we must be born agian/from above (John 3.3).

John 12:31
Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.

Why should we hate our life? because it will lead to judgement, but if we believe in Christ, we can have life in Christ (John 10.10), life-everlasting. Satan is the prince of this world, but the light has come.

John 12:46
I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness

Here is more proof of what I've said, those who believe in Christ don't stay in darkness, the world is in darkness, all men were in darkness.

John 13:1
It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his

Jesus came into the world and he left the world, he love those who were in the world, in darkness, since he is the light. He showed his love by paying for our sins

John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[ 14:17 Some early manuscripts and is] in you.

Look the world cannot accept him? So does this mean we are not of this world before we believe? Food for thought. The world is blind, they don't see him.

John 14:19
Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.

Christ is leaving, this is literally seeing and not figurative has I've shown. Those who "come and see" are the ones who believe and live just has he lives.

John 14:22
Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

Judas distresses because Christ leaves them, and the world but...

John 14:27
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

Christ is the Prince of Peace and not of this world so he does not give the world's peace What is this peace he leaves? The Paraclete or the Holy Spirit.



Chapter: John 14 In context: John 14:26-28)

John 14:30
I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me.

Christ is more powerful than the world.



Chapter: John 14 In context: John 14:26-28)

John 14:30
I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me,

Here we see that the world are not believers? Satan is comming, but for Jesus to kill him, but Jesus will rise again.

John 15:18
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

The world hates Christ, as we have seen, so the world includes all those who hate Christ, they hate his disciples (more than the 12). The world hated Christ, they were against God, this is the sin we all have.

John 15:19
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Have I made it abudantly clear yet that the world rejects Christ, yet God loves the world? (John 3.16) Christ chose is diciples out of the world? Does Christ chose us all? Food for thought? I don't know. But I do know that I understand the Gospel of John. Do you agree? The world hates us, that is why they cry "tolerance" See John 14.6

 

[theseed]

John 16:8
When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt[ 16:8 Or will expose the guilt of the world] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment:

Do you believe that God gave his son to expose the guilt of the world? The world includes all those who are guitly, have sin. This is all of us before we were born from above (John 3.3)

John 16:11
and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

The world has already been judged, and is ****** or condemned, as we read in John 3, all of it is in darknes (see John 1).

John 16:20
I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy.

The world hates us and rejoices, but they wil morn when they are in condemned and its short lived.

John 16:21
A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world.

Just like a mother in labor, we suffer now but will rejoice when Christ comes agian; the dicisples rejoiced when Christ rose again.

John 16:28
I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father

Again, God sent His Son, and the Son leaves.



Chapter: John 16 In context: John 16:27-29)

John 16:33
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Why does John repeat this? Christ has overcome the world, just has light overcomes darkness.

 

[theseed]

John 17:5
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began

Jesus prays, to have the glory that he had before the world began, Christ is before the world, and will be here after it is gone.

John 17:6
"I have revealed you[ 17:6 Greek your name; also in verse 26] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

The elect were God's, support for predistination, I can't help it but that is what the verse is saying. The world is not those who believe or the elect, but the opposite. The elect are given out of the world, they are born from above.

John 17:9
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours

Christ is not praying for the world, whom God loved so much (John 3.16) but for those that God gave to Christ?

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name–the name you gave me–so that they may be one as we are one.

'

John 17:13
"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:12-14)


John 17:14
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:13-15)


John 17:15
My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:14-16)


John 17:16
They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:15-17)


John 17:18
As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:17-19)


John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:20-22)


John 17:23
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:22-24)


John 17:24
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
(Whole Chapter: John 17 In context: John 17:23-25)


John 17:25
"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me.

Christ is before the creation of the World, but world does not recognize him or recieve him (John 1.9-10). The world does not believe in Christ, but Christ prays that they might. And wants them to know that God loves them just has God loves the Son. So the world is those in darkness, sin and darkness are one in the same. (John 3)

 

[theseed]

John 18:20
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.
(Whole Chapter: John 18 In context: John 18:19-21)




John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
(Whole Chapter: John 18 In context: John 18:35-37)




John 18:37
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."



http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...age=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

Again, Christ came into this world to testify to the truth, John repeats this, so Jesus must have too. Christ wants the world to believe. Christ Kingdom is not of this world, We must be born from above to see God's Kingdom (John 3).

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

This does not seem to follow the patern that John uses, but John is writing in the first person. His Gospel is a personal Gospel, as we can see with his 1:1 conversations. John wrote his Gospel so that we might believe and be born from above, be born again. (John 20.30-31).





So to sum, those who don't believe are the ones that are of this world, the same ones that God loves. The world is all who sin. The world does not see thier sin b/c they are blind, but if they come into the Light (Christ) they will see thier sin and be regenerated/born again/born from above/ and we will be without sin, we repent, Jesus washes us from our sin. (John 13).

 

[Preachers12]

Brethren in Christ, God give you Peace.

Early in morning...still sleeping....

There is an excellent book by Stephen Ray called "The Gospel of John" which may be of some interest to anyone wanting to study this Gospel in depth.

Back to sleep....

God Bless,
P12

 

[II Paradox II]

For the record, I am not aware that I ever said Christ "cannot" offer something. I said I didn't understand why Christ "would" offer an exhortation to certain people knowing it would fall on deaf ears. Christ "can" do anything that is in line with His nature. This, of course, easily segways into what Christ can and cannot do and to avoid that let me just say that the only thing that Christ cannot do is break the law of non-contradiction.

ok. I understand what you mean. For the sake of communication, I just call it a principle that you *probably* hold to be true, not an absolute principle that can't be gone against.

I don't understand. You see similarity between a view that espouses a universal offer of salvation with a condition for atonement to be found in the creation and a view that espouses an atonement that is applied based on the plan of God through the death of Christ?

I don't see a similarity in the views themselves, but a similarity in the hermeneutical principle that causes you to read the verse as you did. You mentioned (as you do below), that you don't understand why God would offer something to people who couldn't respond to it. My point was that this principle itself is held strongly by many arminian interpreters of scripture. It is on the basis of this principle that they reject calvinist notions of election. Allow me to illustrate by showing the premises that cause a problem here:

a) God Loves the World
b) In His Love He sends His Son for The World to atone for their sin
c) Not everyone is saved

If you put these together you can see where the problem comes up. If (a) and (b) are true in the sense of the world being everybody then how can (c) end up being true as well?

Let's say that we have you and an arminian in the room and you both agree that God probably wouldn't offer something that people couldn't respond to. Applying that principle to the problem above we get the following answer:

1) For the arminian, he considers God's love for everyone an essential that he can't dispose of, so he thinks of "world" as everyone. Because of the the only way he can avoind universalism at this point is to say that although Christ atoned for everyone and offers this atonement freely, it isn't applied until the people in the world have faith, therefore his system is concistent.

2) You, on the other hand, consider the efficacy of the atonement to be the most important proposition here. If Christ has died for someone and atoned for their sin, their sin is atoned for. However, (a) and (b) taken together would result in universalism. Because of this you redefine "world" to mean "the elect" in order to make these propositions fit together. Now when it says that Christ so loved the world that He gave His Son for them only refers to the elect who can respond, thus preserving your original principle that God probably won't offer something people can't respond to.

ken




Thanks for the url. I'll check it out.

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

theseed, thank you for you input.

Preachers12, thank you for the recommendation.

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

I don't see a similarity in the views themselves, but a similarity in the hermeneutical principle that causes you to read the verse as you did. You mentioned (as you do below), that you don't understand why God would offer something to people who couldn't respond to it. My point was that this principle itself is held strongly by many arminian interpreters of scripture. It is on the basis of this principle that they reject calvinist notions of election. Allow me to illustrate by showing the premises that cause a problem here:

a) God Loves the World
b) In His Love He sends His Son for The World to atone for their sin
c) Not everyone is saved

If you put these together you can see where the problem comes up. If (a) and (b) are true in the sense of the world being everybody then how can (c) end up being true as well?

Let's say that we have you and an arminian in the room and you both agree that God probably wouldn't offer something that people couldn't respond to. Applying that principle to the problem above we get the following answer:

1) For the arminian, he considers God's love for everyone an essential that he can't dispose of, so he thinks of "world" as everyone. Because of the the only way he can avoind universalism at this point is to say that although Christ atoned for everyone and offers this atonement freely, it isn't applied until the people in the world have faith, therefore his system is concistent.

2) You, on the other hand, consider the efficacy of the atonement to be the most important proposition here. If Christ has died for someone and atoned for their sin, their sin is atoned for. However, (a) and (b) taken together would result in universalism. Because of this you redefine "world" to mean "the elect" in order to make these propositions fit together. Now when it says that Christ so loved the world that He gave His Son for them only refers to the elect who can respond, thus preserving your original principle that God probably won't offer something people can't respond to.

ken

Ahhh...I see. So it's the method of interpreting, not the actual interpretation. Well, I would agree with your astute observation then. And, I would say that one of the most important principals when seeking to understand Scripture is to interpret Scripture in light of the actual principles of God. If my understanding were to, in some way, paint God as incompetent then it is my interpretation which must clearly be in error, as God is obviously not incompetent. While I, at least partially, understand the motive behind interpreting "world" in John 3:16 as "everyone," I cannot reconcile that with my understanding of God as causal and capable in every action. I see God as an ultimately efficient and sovereign Creator. I will admit that much of what I believe is the logical result of a particular foundation but, again, that foundation is built upon the principles of a sovereign God. My view of the Arminian understanding of this, and many other verses, is that they clearly place the importance of the creation over the sovereignty of the Creator. To them it would be an affront to humanity to believe that God creates people for the purpose of destruction simply because they place more value on man's glory than on God's glory, especially if that glory comes at the price of man's destruction.

I'm sure you will see the differences in emphasis in the opening statements of the two views that you describe:

"For the arminian, he considers God's love for everyone an essential that he can't dispose of, so he thinks of "world" as everyone."

"You, on the other hand, consider the efficacy of the atonement to be the most important proposition here."

For the Arminian it is more important that everyone be loved equally by the Creator because if they aren't, despite the fact that God owes no one love, then God has been unfair. They would rather think of themselves, though they won't admit it, as worthy recipients of His love, merely by virtue of being His creation. The whole concept of God creating something but not loving it is an assault to their sensibilities because it is the creation that they place the value in.

For myself, I see the outworking and accomplishment of God's plan as ultimately important. I don't see any people as unimportant. I just believe that God's glory must supercede man's glory. Every individual was created for the purpose of bringing glory to God, and they do. However, I don't think the idea that some bring glory to God by their destruction detracts from God's holiness in any way because I put God's glory at the forefront of His plan.

God bless