The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

if you wish to save it and use it thats fine with me, no credit needed.

I'm fine with you not seeing it as world = elect on the verses I gave. My main point is to show that kosmos can mean much more than simply the whole human race. I think 2 Cor. 5:19, would be the clearest one given, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Next would be John 6:33, gives life into the world. I would like to say that it does look clear that the word "world" can very much mean world=world of unbelievers (as in world minus believers.) which I see clearly in John 14:17 (kjv uses cannot receive.)

Limited atonement gave me the most trouble out of any docrine. I struggled with it for a long time. I even have doubts that come up today, and have to revisit it (then trying to be as unbias as I can doing it.) I think the name of the doctrine does have a distasteful sound to it. For me, it would be more distastful to name the arminian 5 points. The counter for L in tulip would be something along the lines of "everyone is saved"...wouldn't it? There has to be some middle ground. To me it would be Jesus died for those who would believe, and not everyone.

In my mind I ask myself this? (please correct me if I'm wrong)
why does one go to hell? because of sin.
what did Jesus do? put those sins unto himself. Stood in our place and took the wrath of our sins.
So if he put everyone's sin unto himself, everyone's sins would be wiped clear. equalling, no one going to hell. We know that there will indeed be people going to hell, so I don't think there would be two punishments for the same sin. (one punishment on Christ, the other on man in hell.)
I think most would/should agree that Jesus died for those who would believe. Were I might differ is who is doing the selecting (God or man).

btw Obadiah, I did like your comments on another forum (concerning Gods sovereignty).

GE:


To begin with the last: If you would like to see just HOW ‘Calvinism’ is ‘discerned’ and rejected, go here: http://www.discerningtheworld.com . Unbelievable, is all I can say. But notice there, that it’s only female who hang on to ‘free will’, and only male who object or dare speak a word in favour of Calvinism and no sooner are “got rid of”. Note also who are the lonesome strangers who still may think Scripture applies.

Re: “The problem with Calvinism is that it ends in what I call 'therefore arguments', and this is one of them that is coupled to another 'limited atonement'.”

What is wrong with ‘therefore-argumentation’? ‘No-reason-assumptioning’? I’ll tell you ‘no-reason-assumptioning’ is the only alternative you’ll get!

“'Therefore arguments'” must be logical and be based on Scripture to start with at least; and must consistently keep to the thrust of that Scripture to the last logical inference to be a ‘therefore argument’ of Calvinism.

Therefore, “'therefore arguments'” are based on INFERENCE;
‘No-‘therefore’-arguments’, are based on assumption only and no Scripture.

The “'therefore arguments'” of Calvinism 1)limit the Love of God, 2)limit the grace of God, 3)limit the efficacy of the cross and work of Christ, and 3)limit who can believe.

Let’s start with the last again.

Calvinism’s “'therefore arguments'” “LIMIT who can believe” and who actually believe, and who ever believed and will believe WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

WHY? ‘BECAUSE’, Calvinism’s are “'therefore arguments'”, and in this instance the ‘therefore’ for and of its ‘argument’, is: Quote, “they (Calvinism and its “'therefore arguments'”) believe that you have to be born of the Spirit of God before you can believe.”EQ

Now tell me will you ever find a more Scriptural, more logical, better cause and effect (scientific)— more PRACTICAL and REALITY-founded reason, argument and explanation for one who believes in Jesus Christ and God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

Will you ever find a more solid FAITH-BASED motive and accountable argument for Christians ‘BELIEVING’ than the reason, motive, argument and explanation of Calvinism’s “'therefore arguments'”, “you HAVE TO BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT of God before you can believe”? And THEREFORE a more solid FAITH-BASED motive and accountable argument for a LIMITED number of believers in Jesus Christ?

Drats, I keep accidentally hitting the "back" button on my new, suppposedly ergonomic mouse before completing this post.


"Specific atonement" would be more descriptive, but would mess up the "TULIP" acronym.

Without weighing in on all of the possible meanings of "Kosmos" in John, it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of John 3:16 is this: "For God loved mankind in this way: He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." By sending His Son, God redeemed the tree of mankind, though not every branch.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

I do like that one the best, "specific atonement." Some other ones I looked up: definite atonement or particular redemption. Specific has my vote.

I've thought of similar interpretations of John 3:16, as the one you gave. Such as world being: "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."
And not everyone of every "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

Ideas came from Rev. 5:9.
Rev. 5:9, KJV: And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

A portion from The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words edited by Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Page 707

Though I admittedly lean heavily Calvinistic I must agree with Obadiah here. It seems to me that there is a heavy leaning upon theological presuppositions before interpretation here. I think it is easily said we all do that in some sense as we see through the lenses that we have on our face (so-to-speak). Though kosmos can stand for "humanity" I think we must rule out the other nuances clearly before we plug in such a nuance. Then for us to impose meaning into the text from theological presuppositions does damage IMHO to the point that the author intended within the text itself. (I find that Both Calvinists and Arminians do this regularly to the "world" passages.) Generally these things devolve into a heated argument over the meaning of a word rather than an understanding of the context and meaning of the text.
I like Jim's "reasonable interpretation" of Jn. 3:16 untill I read the context. Then I find the "humanity" rendering quite uncomfortable. Shall we insert that into Jn. 3:17? frankly, I think it obvious that Jesus did not come "into humanity". Consistency requires us to reconsider such an interpretation IMHO (see also Jn. 3:19).
I believe that the Calvinistic/Augustinian understanding of grace and election is quite valid. But we must not damage the text while arguing for such an understanding.

My 2 cents.

Blessings all,
Randy

Randy, I certainly appreciate your comments. I will readily admit that I sometimes approach Scripture with a theological bias. But it is not readily apparent to me that Jesus did not come "into humanity" as you put it. For John has already told us, "And the Word became flesh." Jesus in fact did enter "into humanity" for that is what the incarnation is all about.

But that is not a hill I would die on. The main point of John 3:16 is not that "God sooooooo loved the world" (as in, "God loved the world soooooo much"), but rather the "how" of God's love, namely, that "He loved the world in this way (or, "like so"): that He sent His Son..." And so, I would agree more with the NetBible's translation in this instance: than with the NASB's translation:

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

GE:

John 3:16 in so many words itself ‘proposes’ or supposes, “whosoever believeth” EXCLUSIVELY. Which inference is perfectly compliable with my own view that ‘kosmos’ in John 3:16 upholds its most original meaning of all God’s creation, because all God’s creation is co-saved in the saved elect of God, who themselves are co-saved in Christ. For which persuasion you will agree there is ample Scripture, like Romans 8 and Colossians 2.

I must admit I haven't seen this idea before, that κοσμος in John 3:16 is the overall creation and that the verse means, essentially, "God so loved His creation that He redeemed the elect in order to redeem the creation." (Although I do find it interesting that you're so favorable toward tony's presentation, which offers an argument completely incompatible with your take on the verse.) I believe you're putting the cart before the horse. In the material you cited from Romans and Colossians, the focus of God's redemption (besides being, of course, centered on God) is man. The redemption of the natural world is secondary. It isn't that God redeems the elect because He loves the natural world.

Therefore: Be answered by yourself: “You can't change the meaning of a word to suit your theology” that clearly presupposes in John 3:16 a Love of God that is indiscriminately a love for every man and all men ALIKE and without exception.

You just don't seem to get it. I'm not proposing any new or radical definition for κοσμος. κοσμος as I understand it in John 3:16 is in accordance with every lexicon or dictionary ever written.

tony:

I'm fine with you not seeing it as world = elect on the verses I gave.

But without that point, your defense of limited love doesn't work.

My main point is to show that kosmos can mean much more than simply the whole human race.

True, it carries other senses. But just because it means something else doesn't indicate it can mean anything else. There's no NT or non-NT example of κοσμος meaning 'God's chosen people' or such.

I think 2 Cor. 5:19, would be the clearest one given, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Next would be John 6:33, gives life into the world.

I prefer to understand κοσμος in accordance with what the word means and accommodating my interpretation of these texts to that than to go the other way around.

I would like to say that it does look clear that the word "world" can very much mean world=world of unbelievers (as in world minus believers.) which I see clearly in John 14:17 (kjv uses cannot receive.)

Definitely κοσμος can mean 'world minus believers' (I like the way you put it). When you take the εκκλησια out of [εκ] the κοσμος, unbelievers are what you have left. That's not saying that any part of κοσμος can still be called κοσμος.

Limited atonement gave me the most trouble out of any docrine. I struggled with it for a long time. I even have doubts that come up today, and have to revisit it (then trying to be as unbias as I can doing it.)

I genuinely appreciate your honestly concerning the difficulty of grappling with the issue.

The counter for L in tulip would be something along the lines of "everyone is saved"...wouldn't it? There has to be some middle ground. To me it would be Jesus died for those who would believe, and not everyone.

For me, the whole question of the extent of the atonement is misplaced. People approach it as if it were some sort of mathematical equation: In the history of the world, X sins are committed by the entire human race and X minus Y sins are committed by those who are ultimately redeemed, so did Jesus endure X amount of suffering or X minus Y amount of suffering? For me, that whole question (even without the mathematical jargon) is entirely the wrong question to ask. If Jesus Christ is God incarnate, His suffering was sufficient for any sins anyone could ever commit. It isn't like every ounce of His suffering (if suffering could be so quantified) is worth X number of sins. When Israel sacrificed the passover lamb, it was one lamb to a family. It isn't like the larger families -- or the families who sinned more -- had to offer a bigger lamb. The Lamb of God is the equal -- no, I daresay, more than the equal -- of all the sins of a million human races. The entire question, then, is one of God's intent. Did God intend to save all, or some? We have Scripture to the effect that God desires that all be saved, yet also Scripture to the effect that only some will be saved. I believe that as He approached the cross, Christ looked with love upon all, even those who were rejecting Him, and yet He looked with a very special love upon those who had received Him, those who were "His own." But all of this is getting far afield of the meaning of κοσμος.

I've thought of similar interpretations of John 3:16, as the one you gave. Such as world being: "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." And not everyone of every "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

If John 3:16 read, "For God so loved some of the world…" I'd be open to this idea. But with the text as it stands it sounds more like a first-century political correctness: God condemns the majority of humanity, but at least He's not a racist!

btw Obadiah, I did like your comments on another forum (concerning Gods sovereignty)

Thanks.

Jimd:

Without weighing in on all of the possible meanings of "Kosmos" in John, it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of John 3:16 is this: "For God loved mankind in this way: He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." By sending His Son, God redeemed the tree of mankind, though not every branch.

It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Scripture teaches that God has a general love for mankind (Paul calls it φιλανθρωπια in Titus 3:4). He sends the rain upon the just and the unjust and all that. But how can it be said that God loves the human race in general when He condemns the majority of humans while it's completely at His disposal to save them? This sounds very much like Calvin's 'particular love' -- not at all like a love for the world, for human beings as a whole.

And so, I would agree more with the NetBible's translation in this instance: For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. than with the NASB's translation: 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.

Me, too! (And it's stop-the-presses rare for me to like the NET's NT translation.) I've always been curious about KJV's choice of 'whosoever,' since their calvinistic bent is apparent throughout their work.


Randy:

It seems to me that there is a heavy leaning upon theological presuppositions before interpretation here.

It's difficult for all of us to read Scripture without framing it according to what we already believe to be biblically true. Tony's sharing of his grappling above is illustrative: sometimes we see a verse a certain way because, well, it just has to mean this or it just can't mean that. That's one of the things that make a forum such as bible.org so valuable by granting us the ability to dialogue on specific texts with those of like precious faith who approach those texts from a different framework.

So how do calvanists manage to twist the scripures such as these?

I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (Matt. 9:13).

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

I can only put calvanist doctrine down to Col 2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

appologies if that is found offensive but I find the whole calvanist doctrine offensive.

_________________
http://christianfindings.wordpress.com/
http://www.housechurchbrisbane.com/
Favourite verse John 7:37-39

I hear you on that! Personally, I find "lordship salvation" offensive, not Calvinism.
TULIP does tend to put God in a box, though....

just IMHO

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB

Since you appear so sincere in your apology, I magnanimously accept on behalf of all Calvinists.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

not sure what you mean. I take it as it's meant. Jesus came to save the lost, sick, and the ungodely (Romans 5:6). I think most would agree that everyone is truely lost. Before one is called he is lost, a lost sheep. The righteous (or those who think they are righteous/but really not) are not who Jesus is calling. Matthew 9:13, ...I did not come to call the righteous... The righteous don't see any value in Christ, Matthew 9:12. They think they are heathy.

I was mostly meaning that your objection is fine, but it doesn't change my stance.

I do like jimd answer, My thoughts: loves the world but not died for the whole world, but only those who believes in him. Love world, but not as in saving love (salvation, imo). As far as this verse goes.

Yes it covered all the sins of the family. Didn't require anymore sacrifice. As you jumped around when comparing it to Jesus. "question, then, is one of God's intent. Did God intend to save all, or some?" The lamb when sacrificed covered the families sin. It wasn't a possibility, it covered it, no? I would think Jesus died for actual sins of people and not possible/could happen later sins. (imo)
3 catagories, of covered sins: (to make it easier)
1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.
3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position. (And mine)

My thoughts: loves the world but not died for the whole world, but only those who believes in him. Love world, but not as in saving love (salvation, imo)

I understand the distinction you're drawing, but I have difficulty with the notion that, within your framework, God loves the non-elect in any meaningful way. It's entirely within God's power to save them. The reason they aren't saved is because God chooses not to save them. (The idea that they're not saved because they're sinners doesn't really wash in a calvinist framework. According to Calvin, God predestined them to sin in the first place [see below], and even if that weren't the case, the only reason they don't repent and believe is because God chooses not to regenerate them when He undeniably could do so.) What sense does it make that God loves Bill but chooses to consign Bill to eternal torment instead of availing Himself of the opportunity to redeem Bill? If a man gave his child candy and then killed him, would you say that his giving the child candy was evidence that he loved the child?

As you jumped around when comparing it to Jesus.

I'm a bit baffled by this statement. The prefigurement of Jesus in the passover is probably the most explicit example of typology in the entire Bible. Hardly seems like a leap to me.

The lamb when sacrificed covered the families sin. It wasn't a possibility, it covered it, no? I would think Jesus died for actual sins of people and not possible/could happen later sins.

The point of my comparison was that there was no mathematical correspondence between the suffering of the sacrifice and the sins it atoned for. Certain aspects are parallel, some aren't (for example, the need for the Israelites to provide their own lamb and actually perform the sacrifice on their own behalf, neither of which is paralleled in Christ).

3 catagories, of covered sins: (to make it easier)
1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.
2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.
3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position. (And mine)

Again, you're going back to the mathematical model. Christ's death is of infinite value. It's not like we need to come up with a 1:1 ratio of our sins and His suffering.

which is the biblical position. (And mine)

Ummm… it's really not a good idea to label "my position" "the biblical position". It's kind of presumptuous, actually.

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man.  All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (3:21:5).

There is no erratic power or action or motion in creatures but they are governed by God's secret plan in such a way that nothing [this must include all sins ever committed] happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by Him (1:16:3)

Both citations are, I believe, from Institutes; translations taken from the web, emphasis and interpolation mine.

_________________
All translations of Scripture and other sources are my own unless otherwise noted.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I didn't mean compairing it to the passover but these parts: And not really giving your own anwers to your questions: "Intend to save all or some? We have Scripture to the effect that God desires that all be saved, yet also Scripture to the effect that only some will be saved." Did He intend to save all? And what is the love you mention, is it redeeming love or like the candy and death example you gave. Love and a specail kind of love. How is that any differnt than what I said earlier. I would agree it is not the same kind of love.

I'm having trouble finding definitions of kosmos. Iv'e been google searching kosmos and lexicon's. Most of them seem to be the same. strongs lexicon: 2889. kosmos kos'-mos probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)):--adorning, world

strongs cordinance:
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8.) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19