John 3:16 kosmos doesn't mean all?

[ALAYMAN]

Was reading some sovereign grace literature recently and the author made the claim that "the world" as defined in Jn 3:16 meant that God loves all sorts/kinds of people groups in the kosmos.  He made this conclusion on the anemic contextual effort of claiming that John knew that the Jews were too insular with the their view of God's salvific plan (because they viewed only themselves as Abraham's seed).  He went on to claim that the context of "the world" is always limited by qualifiers, and he did so by using <sophistry, in part> various passages where it was obvious that "world" was limited in its nature (ie, "Caesar taxed all the world").  He went so far as to say that nowhere else in the Bible does the phrase "the world" mean explicitly all people everywhere, and therefore it is a poor hermeneutic to claim Jn 3:16 would mean that God loves every human of all time (in any sense whatsoever) when "the world" nowhere else is used to describe all people everywhere.  Do you accept this premise, that "the world" as used in the Bible is never used anywhere else in Scriptures to describe all people everywhere?  If not, should such sloppy polemical sophistry cause one to question the entire argument(s) of such types of writers?

 

[FSSL]

Too bad Alayman's lack of sophisticated analysis would exclude the fact that God hated some. Esau...

 

[Ransom]

Since it is, in fact, obvious that kosmos does frequently have a restrictive sense, what is LAMER's justification for denying it in John 3:16?

For example, 1 John 2:15 says not to love the world (kosmos).  Unless we want to accuse God of sinning, we have to concede that it means something different there than in John 3:16, n'est-ce pas?

 

[brianb]

Was reading some sovereign grace literature recently and the author made the claim that "the world" as defined in Jn 3:16 meant that God loves all sorts/kinds of people groups in the kosmos.  He made this conclusion on the anemic contextual effort of claiming that John knew that the Jews were too insular with the their view of God's salvific plan (because they viewed only themselves as Abraham's seed).  He went on to claim that the context of "the world" is always limited by qualifiers, and he did so by using <sophistry, in part> various passages where it was obvious that "world" was limited in its nature (ie, "Caesar taxed all the world").  He went so far as to say that nowhere else in the Bible does the phrase "the world" mean explicitly all people everywhere, and therefore it is a poor hermeneutic to claim Jn 3:16 would mean that God loves every human of all time (in any sense whatsoever) when "the world" nowhere else is used to describe all people everywhere.  Do you accept this premise, that "the world" as used in the Bible is never used anywhere else in Scriptures to describe all people everywhere?  If not, should such sloppy polemical sophistry cause one to question the entire argument(s) of such types of writers?

In Luke 2:1 and different Greek word is used for world - it's the word we get ecumenical from - it means known inhabited earth. It obviously doesn't mean Caesar taxed China/the rest of Asia or other continents like Australia or North and South America - the last 3 of which were not yet known. I'm not going to get into the debate about what the world includes or excludes as far as people are concerned.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Too bad Alayman's lack of sophisticated analysis would exclude the fact that God hated some. Esau...

You didn't answer the question(s).

Since it is, in fact, obvious that kosmos does frequently have a restrictive sense, what is LAMER's justification for denying it in John 3:16?

You didn't answer the question(s) either.  But to answer your question, context determines meaning.  Immediate context is the first priority in determining meaning, not fleeing to distant contexts.

That aside, the <false> assertion that the OP dealt with was the Calvinut claim that nowhere else in the Scriptures does the phrase kosmos mean "the entire world".  That red herring (that nowhere else in Scripture does "the world" mean everybody without exception) was the whole basis for interpreting Jn 3:16 as needing restriction.  The point is that it isn't just people such as  The Sword of the Lord who use sophistry, clever editing, and eisigesis to prove their point.  Frankly, I don't care for either side using such patently false argumentation to try to convince their audience.  It's nothing more than mere pandering to the base.

 

[Ransom]

You didn't answer the question(s) either.

That's true. As a general rule, I avoid the loaded ones.

But to answer your question, context determines meaning.

And you haven't provided any context to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that in John 3:16, kosmos has no restrictions.  Calling your opponents "Calvinuts" does not constitute proof.

 

[FSSL]

And you haven't provided any context to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that in John 3:16, kosmos has no restrictions.  Calling your opponents "Calvinuts" does not constitute proof.

Alayman has a set of rules for himself, which when turned on himself, he tries to avoid. Of course, there is a proper hermeneutical principle which treats Scripture as a unified whole. Since we know Scripture does not contradict itself, we must understand the univocally clear phrase "God loved Jacob and hated Esau," when developing an understanding of the phrase "God loved the world." "World" is vague. It is either restrictive or non-restrictive. To claim that it means every individual in the world violates the noncontradictory nature of Scripture.

Then again, Alayman, having no ability to interact with this brushes this off as not in the immediate context. I suppose his next post will include the word "sophistry" to avoid giving an answer.

 

[wheatpenny]

Also, Ps. 5:5 says God hates workers of iniquity.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The point is that it isn't just people such as  The Sword of the Lord who use sophistry, clever editing, and eisigesis to prove their point.  Frankly, I don't care for either side using such patently false argumentation to try to convince their audience.  It's nothing more than mere pandering to the base.
[/quote]

 

[AresMan]

Was reading some sovereign grace literature recently and the author made the claim that "the world" as defined in Jn 3:16 meant that God loves all sorts/kinds of people groups in the kosmos.  He made this conclusion on the anemic contextual effort of claiming that John knew that the Jews were too insular with the their view of God's salvific plan (because they viewed only themselves as Abraham's seed).  He went on to claim that the context of "the world" is always limited by qualifiers, and he did so by using <sophistry, in part> various passages where it was obvious that "world" was limited in its nature (ie, "Caesar taxed all the world").  He went so far as to say that nowhere else in the Bible does the phrase "the world" mean explicitly all people everywhere, and therefore it is a poor hermeneutic to claim Jn 3:16 would mean that God loves every human of all time (in any sense whatsoever) when "the world" nowhere else is used to describe all people everywhere.  Do you accept this premise, that "the world" as used in the Bible is never used anywhere else in Scriptures to describe all people everywhere?  If not, should such sloppy polemical sophistry cause one to question the entire argument(s) of such types of writers?

Is not God allowed to use words in a generic sense that do not have to be understood exhaustively as "every single individual person who ever lived, is living, and ever would live without exception and in the same way"?

Yes, God loved the kosmos in a general sense. He loves people of every kindred, tongue, tribe, and nation. The verse basically says "For God loved the world in this manner--the He gave His only unique Son--so that (with the result/purpose that) all the ones believing into Him should not perish, but rather have everlasting life."

The love of God is expressed via Him giving His Son. The purpose of this was to save all the believing ones. There is particularity in John 3:16. You need to compare Scripture with Scripture that also shows God "hating" certain people, electing people, redeeming "classes" of people, Jew and Gentile are equal, and so on to understand what Jesus intended to convey. Why do so many want to believe that God's "strongest desire" is something that He can only fail to accomplish because He stacks the deck against Himself?

 

[Reformed Guy]

I don't see any compelling reason to believe that "the world" in John 3:16 includes every person without distinction, but my brand of Calvinism does not stand or fall on it not meaning such.

We confess that all who come to Christ in repentance and faith will be saved-- not one will be turned away.  We believe that God has, from eternity, chosen a number of elect that will come to Him in faith, and this number can be neither reduced or added too.  We believe that God has love toward all men, as he sends good things to all, but has a particular love for His elect and a particular hatred for the reprobate.

The point that the word "world" does not refer to all individuals without distinction is not without merit, although some do, IMHO, make too much of this point to defend the Calvinist system.  There's nothing in John 3:16 that would require such a definition to prevent an idea where God has offered up His Son and now waits to see who will and who won't respond.

 

[AresMan]

I don't see any compelling reason to believe that "the world" in John 3:16 includes every person without distinction, but my brand of Calvinism does not stand or fall on it not meaning such.

We confess that all who come to Christ in repentance and faith will be saved-- not one will be turned away.  We believe that God has, from eternity, chosen a number of elect that will come to Him in faith, and this number can be neither reduced or added too.  We believe that God has love toward all men, as he sends good things to all, but has a particular love for His elect and a particular hatred for the reprobate.

The point that the word "world" does not refer to all individuals without distinction is not without merit, although some do, IMHO, make too much of this point to defend the Calvinist system.  There's nothing in John 3:16 that would require such a definition to prevent an idea where God has offered up His Son and now waits to see who will and who won't respond.

I would agree that the "love" for "the world" in John 3:16 is generally expressed and people should not look too much into it. God does have a love for all without distinction. However, we would probably agree that the love here cannot be the same type of love expressed in Romans 8:35: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" The type of love for "the world" in John 3:16 if generally applied does not have the same attentive power as the "love of Christ" from which a believer cannot be separated in Romans 8:35.

 

[Reformed Guy]

Yes, I agree.  My love for my wife is not the same as the "love" that I am to show my neighbor (nor is it supposed to be).

 

[Ransom]

Reformed Guy said:

The point that the word "world" does not refer to all individuals without distinction is not without merit, although some do, IMHO, make too much of this point to defend the Calvinist system.

Right. Fundamentally the point of the verse is not to explain the extents of God's love - it's to demonstrate the manner of God's love: he loves sinners such that he sent his Son to die so those who believe will not perish.

 

[AresMan]

Reformed Guy said:

The point that the word "world" does not refer to all individuals without distinction is not without merit, although some do, IMHO, make too much of this point to defend the Calvinist system.

Right. Fundamentally the point of the verse is not to explain the extents of God's love - it's to demonstrate the manner of God's love: he loves sinners such that he sent his Son to die so those who believe will not perish.

8)

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL].... I suppose his next post will include the word "sophistry" to avoid giving an answer.
[/quote]


No, the appropriate word for you is obfuscation, or evasion.


Neither you nor Ransom attempted to answer the question introduced in the OP, but rather erected questions and answers that you wished I had posed.  Here's the simple question, one more time...

Do you accept this premise, that "the world" as used in the Bible is never used anywhere else in Scriptures to describe all people everywhere?

At least Aresman and Reformed Guy made modest attempts at addressing the essence of the OP, and I'll try to get back to address at least some of their point(s) later.

 

[AresMan]

Neither you nor Ransom attempted to answer the question introduced in the OP, but rather erected questions and answers that you wished I had posed.

This is not an answer?

[quote author=Ransom]Since it is, in fact, obvious that kosmos does frequently have a restrictive sense, what is LAMER's justification for denying it in John 3:16?

For example, 1 John 2:15 says not to love the world (kosmos).  Unless we want to accuse God of sinning, we have to concede that it means something different there than in John 3:16, n'est-ce pas?  [emphasis mine][/quote]

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=AresMan]This is not an answer?[/quote]

Not to the question in the OP.  It says nothing about the claim of the sovereign gracer I alluded to who said that the term "the world" is always used in a restrictive or qualified sense elsewhere in Scripture.

Having said that, I agree with both your and Reformed Guy's explanation that God has a special love that is peculiar and unique to those whose sins Christ atoned for.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=AresMan] The love of God is expressed via Him giving His Son. The purpose of this was to save all the believing ones.[/quote]

The author referenced in the OP used the example of Esau and Jacob (hated vs loved) as evidence that God hates the non-elect.  Conceding that God's purpose in His atonement was surely for the redemption of all who believe, I would say that His love is not similarly restricted, as evidenced in several passages like that of Mark 10:21 and the rich young ruler.  In addition, Romans 3:19 clearly shows that "the world" most certainly can have reference to the entire world without restriction.  The point of citing those two simple passages is to show that some people's a priori theological grid drives their interpretation, rather than letting Scripture be determined by context.  The John 3:16 passage is set within the Numbers 21 narrative about the brazen serpent.  All who looked to the serpent could be saved, the whole world, if you will.

 

[Ransom]

The point of citing those two simple passages is to show that some people's a priori theological grid drives their interpretation, rather than letting Scripture be determined by context.

Rather like saying the pronoun "whosoever" presupposes autonomous free will, for example? *snicker*