John 3:16 kosmos doesn't mean all?

[AresMan]

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

You mean "all the believing ones" does not mean "everyone has the autonomous and intrinsic ability to believe"?

That's a new one.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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*

Raising more arguments that you wished I would have brought?  Seems quite the pattern is emerging.

Examining my OP with objective understanding, and coupling it with the excerpt you bolded in this most recent response of yours, it would seem that you'd eventually get the point that I'm not necessarily arguing against Calvinism, or predestination per se, but rather those who would employ arguments that are absurdly, patently, and easily disprovable.  Neither side of the aisle ("The Sword" nor the extreme Sovereign Gracers) do themselves any favor by going to such <false> extremes in order to support their particular theological flavor ("freewill" or "God's sovereignty").  How a person arrives at their conclusion is nearly as important to me as the conclusion itself. 

I tend towards some form of Amyryldiasm, but insofar as I agree with the "freewillers" I distance myself from those who ignorantly make claims like "all means all", or "Spurgeon was no Calvinist", or "Calvinism kills evangelism/soulwinning".  Similarly, as I read this piece of literature at the behest of a friend, I was looking forward to reading some material from his particular sphere of influence.  I knew there would be some things that I'd disagree with, but the writing style and apologetic method was fatally flawed from the outset by their use of ad hominem and false Scriptural citations to prove their point.  If a man will lie, or intentionally mislead, just to prove his point then all that he says ought to be looked at with great suspicion.

 

[Ransom]

Raising more arguments that you wished I would have brought?

As opposed to wishing you'd change your bad habit of stirring up crap by flogging the same dead horses, and just shut the Hyles up, you mean? Guess again.

I tend towards some form of Amyryldiasm

Not me, but at least I can spell it properly.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Raising more arguments that you wished I would have brought?

As opposed to wishing you'd change your bad habit of stirring up crap by flogging the same dead horses, and just shut the Hyles up, you mean? Guess again.

I give you my word that I'll shut my piehole the day you quit being an ass, so with that, there's not much hope for either of us.

I tend towards some form of Amyryldiasm

Not me, but at least I can spell it properly.

It was a typo.  With such misdirection, it's clear to all who read that you'd rather chase rabbits than employ an ounce of intellectual honesty and address the essence of the OP.  You, and many like you, love to hammer on Hyles, Kidd, and a host of others who are theologically shallow, but when it is one of your ox being gored you can't stand to see the massacre.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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

You mean "all the believing ones" does not mean "everyone has the autonomous and intrinsic ability to believe"?

That's a new one.

The focus of the OP was the extent of God's love, which I thought was pretty self-evident.  Since it's pretty clear that the forum collectively would rather play word games and misdirect the intent of the OP, I'll run with this word game.

If your rendering of whosoever is correct, does that mean that some of the elect might perish?

 

[Izdaari]

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

You mean "all the believing ones" does not mean "everyone has the autonomous and intrinsic ability to believe"?

That's a new one.

The focus of the OP was the extent of God's love, which I thought was pretty self-evident.  Since it's pretty clear that the forum collectively would rather play word games and misdirect the intent of the OP, I'll run with this word game.

Well, there's at least one person here who agrees with Alayman on this, and it's me. I don't think the meaning of kosmos in John 3:16 is restrictive, nor is it necessarily restrictive elsewhere in the Bible, though it may be restrictive in some places. I don't think the meaning needs to change within John 1 to make sense. God is God, and is entitled to love all of His Creation. We, however, are supposed to love God more than His Creation.

But I am not a Calvinist. Though I enjoy reading Calvin, I think he himself makes much more sense than most of his followers do. Calvin had a 'prickles vs. goo' imbalance, and his followers have it even worse, sometimes to ridiculous extremes. I think Luther got more of it right than Calvin did.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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

You mean "all the believing ones" does not mean "everyone has the autonomous and intrinsic ability to believe"?

That's a new one.

The focus of the OP was the extent of God's love, which I thought was pretty self-evident.  Since it's pretty clear that the forum collectively would rather play word games and misdirect the intent of the OP, I'll run with this word game.

Well, there's at least one person here who agrees with Alayman on this, and it's me. I don't think the meaning of kosmos in John 3:16 is restrictive, nor is it necessarily restrictive elsewhere in the Bible, though it may be restrictive in some places. I don't think the meaning needs to change within John 1 to make sense. God is God, and is entitled to love all of His Creation. We, however, are supposed to love God more than His Creation.

But I am not a Calvinist. Though I enjoy reading Calvin, I think he himself makes much more sense than most of his followers do. Calvin had a 'prickles vs. goo' imbalance, and his followers have it even worse, sometimes to ridiculous extremes. I think Luther got more of it right than Calvin did.

Calvin wasn't Calvinistic enough to pass muster for the Sovereign Grace sorts in the OP.

Jean Calvin

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

 

[Izdaari]

Calvin wasn't Calvinistic enough to pass muster for the Sovereign Grace sorts in the OP.

Jean Calvin

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

Agreed!

And very nice Calvin quote.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]Agreed!

And very nice Calvin quote.
[/quote]


Well, since you enjoyed it, here's another from a prominent Calvinist....

D.A. Carson

"God's salvific stance toward his fallen world. God so loved the world
that he gave his Son (John 3:16). I know that some try to take kosmos
("world") here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the
evidence of the usage of the word in John's Gospel is against the
suggestion. True, world in John does not so much refer to bigness as to
badness. In John's vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in
willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God's love in
sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired not because it is extended to so
big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing; not to so many people, as
to such wicked people. Nevertheless elsewhere John can speak of "the whole
world" (1 John 2:2), thus bringing bigness and badness together. More
importantly, in Johannine theology the disciples themselves once belonged
to the world but were drawn out of it (e.g., John 15:19). On this axis,
God's love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not usually a fan of Carson, but he got that one right.  8)

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'm not usually a fan of Carson, but he got that one right.  8)

From Carson's analysis of John 3:16 and the extent of God's love, it only gets worse for these cosmic kiiljoys...

So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God

 

[ALAYMAN]

Where'd all those substantive-desiring Calvinists disappear?



FSSL, you don't have to keep peeking in at the thread and then playing the ostrich. 


lol

 

[Izdaari]

I liked the first two Carson quotes a lot, but I'm going to have to part company with him on this last one: He's gettin' all Calvinist now, and saying that non-Calvinist Christians should buy into the L of the TULIP (and adding in the faulty assumption that all non-Calvinist Christians are Arminians, ignoring the existence of Lutherans and others). Nope, ain't going for that. I do have Calvinist moods, but even then I'm a Christmas ("no L") Calvinist.

 

[Ransom]

Where'd all those substantive-desiring Calvinists disappear?

Do you need us to chime in and amen Carson?  What's it worth to you?

 

[FSSL]

Where'd all those substantive-desiring Calvinists disappear?
FSSL, you don't have to keep peeking in at the thread and then playing the ostrich. 
lol

Since a long reply is difficult from my phone, I don't care.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Where'd all those substantive-desiring Calvinists disappear?



FSSL, you don't have to keep peeking in at the thread and then playing the ostrich. 


lol

I can't speak for the other Calvinists, but I'm bored by the topic.  Everyone in the whole world knows by now all the arguments on both sides. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Ransom]
Do you need us to chime in and amen Carson?
[/quote]


So long as you amen him where he explicitly affirms that the scope of God's love in some sense is not limited to the lucky lottery winners we're all good.  Of course if you'd have done that a couple of pages ago you could have spared us the melodrama.

Since a long reply is difficult from my phone, I don't care.

They say a poor excuse is better than none, but in your case I'd go with the "silence is golden" line.

I can't speak for the other Calvinists, but I'm bored by the topic.  Everyone in the whole world knows by now all the arguments on both sides. 

I can relate.  Nearly every discussion on here is rewarmed goulash.  But in this case, Calvinism was merely the backdrop.  The thrust of the OP was the manner in which people ride a hobby horse to an extreme, and ultimately make their theological hangup more of a caricature than authentic Christianity, similar to that which is being discussed in Tarheel Baptist's thread regarding dead orthodoxy ("doctrine").  Specifically, saying that God only loves the elect, and that he hates all the non-elect, is over-simplified codswollop that makes for crusty-crotchety ol' windbags of disciples.

 

[Izdaari]

Specifically, saying that God only loves the elect, and that he hates all the non-elect, is over-simplified codswollop that makes for crusty-crotchety ol' windbags of disciples.

For once, you and I are in complete agreement. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
For once, you and I are in complete agreement. 
[/quote]


Surely this ain't the first time for that???








Since you're a Luther fan, and you didn't like the last Calvie quote (though I'd agree with your disagreement in the parts you took exception to), here's one you'll find more agreement with in content, and authorship...

Martin Luther in Table Talk-- on John 3:16:

Moreover, who knows whether I am elected to salvation? Answer: Look at the words [of John 3:16], I beseech you, to determine how and of whom He is speaking. "God so loved the world," and "that whosoever believeth in Him." Now, the "world" does not mean Peter and Paul alone but the entire human race, all together. And no one is here excluded. God

 

[Izdaari]

No, it's not the first time. And when we disagree, we do so agreeably.  :-*

And yes, I like Luther a lot, and quotes like that are part of the reason why. That's terrific!  ;D