# Limited Atonement Question...



## SouthernHero (Nov 7, 2007)

1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I would like to know if any of the learned folks here can explain these verses better than I can? My understanding is that Christ meant the "all" in Timothy to mean "all of His elect." And that the "world" in 1 john is meaning not just ethnic Israel or the currently known geography and nations, but from all nations.

Am I making this too simplistic? Thanks in advance. -sjm


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 7, 2007)

SouthernHero said:


> 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
> 
> 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
> 
> ...



SECTION 45. - 1 Timothy 2:4

SECTION 57. - 1 John 2:2

Death of Death in the Death of Christ | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## SouthernHero (Nov 7, 2007)

Thanks so much for those resources; I will certainly check them out.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 7, 2007)

SouthernHero said:


> I would like to know if any of the learned folks here can explain these verses better than I can? My understanding is that Christ meant the "all" in Timothy to mean "all of His elect." And that the "world" in 1 john is meaning not just ethnic Israel or the currently known geography and nations, but from all nations.
> 
> Am I making this too simplistic?



Perhaps. Words have their ultimate meaning in context. This is where I find Gill and Owen at their weakest. Whilst "all" doesn't have to refer to all people (in some verses), and "world" can refer to a group less than all people (in other verses), the question that must be asked is what does "all" mean _in the context_ of 1 Tim. 2 and "world" _in the context_ of 1 John 2:2.

What is interesting about 1 Tim. 2 is the continual use of "all" / "every" (_pas_) throughout the whole chapter. I doubt that "all" in 2:5 can be understood as a subset of humanity.

Furthermore, why does John qualify "world", with "whole" in 1 John 2:2? And does anything in the context show us that ethnic boundaries are in view? Again, I don't think so.

I find these difficult passages to understand, given that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ's death secures salvation for the elect (Rev. 5:9).


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 7, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> SouthernHero said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know if any of the learned folks here can explain these verses better than I can? My understanding is that Christ meant the "all" in Timothy to mean "all of His elect." And that the "world" in 1 john is meaning not just ethnic Israel or the currently known geography and nations, but from all nations.
> ...



I have consistantly wondered what would those who heard this or read only this letter. (1 Tim or 1 John) We have the opportunity to utilyze the whole Inspired writ. If a person were to only hear these words spoken or read, had nothing else to use the "Analogy of Scripture" they would have to be a universalist. Unless of course Gill et others are right that they would have restricted the sense of these words in the original tongue. I do not know though.

the Westminster Confession states it thus: “The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

But what about those who did not have the opportunity in the primitive church? Could you imagine some of us bringing out the perverbial Romans 9 defense to everything to support "calvinism", when there was no Romans 9 to read? So I take the WCF statement with a clarification and conditional truth that MUST be stated. The analogy of Scripture can only be used by those who have the whole of the inspired writ. We can and always do play "biblical hopscotch" Or the cry of "Context, context context" Now I have no issue doing this when needed, but at times it is used as a fail safe crutch against scripture that "opposes" our/anyones belief. 

I believe we should go to jews more to actually find out how they would have understood these verses..


My heart breaks for those who only had the opportunity to read the book of James. it is no wonder a works salvation is so present amongst the jews. 

If anyone can further my concern here, I would greatly appreciate it..


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 7, 2007)

> I find these difficult passages to understand, given that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ's death secures salvation for the elect (Rev. 5:9).



Propitiation sufficient for ALL, would we (fallen man) surrender our will.

Particularly for the ELECT, since we will not.

Remember - we (fallen man) are *enemies* of God - by nature.

This fits God's JUST and MERCIFUL character, since it provides additional substantiation for His *judgment* of the reprobate and *mercy* to the chosen.


----------



## SouthernHero (Nov 7, 2007)

AmazingGrace, you are right, what a sad disadvantage the early church must have been at without the complete testimony of scripture. Yet, by the Holy Spirit's power they had it together alot better than our current "church," be it rome or Osteen or most what's in between.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 7, 2007)

SouthernHero said:


> AmazingGrace, you are right, what a sad disadvantage the early church must have been at without the complete testimony of scripture. Yet, by the Holy Spirit's power they had it together alot better than our current "church," be it rome or Osteen or most what's in between.



I do not even know if i would go this far. The Apostolic witness recorded in the writ is perfect, Yet how could those who only had the book of James or only heard James 2 spoken. This person would have been lost to the truth.let alone understand The 5 solas? Think about it. I am not limiting the power of the Spirit to enlighten minds without any or little means. But there appears to be a ton of writings that speak of universalism, works salvation in the 1st few centuries. So again, the statement from the WCF and other confessions must be qualified as having the whole writ.

Unless again they would have understood these 'troubling' words better than we can.


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 8, 2007)

SouthernHero said:


> 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
> 
> 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
> 
> ...



You are on track. It is simple in a certain sense.

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 

In John 11 John explained it this way

In John 1 He explained it like this;
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 

29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> > I find these difficult passages to understand, given that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ's death secures salvation for the elect (Rev. 5:9).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes indeed JD, the Dortian "suffucient for all efficient for the elect" is a good summary. But as you know, this little statement has a multitude of interpretations ... and that's where the fun (and fights!) begin.

Blessings to you brother.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Nov 8, 2007)

http://www.theologicallycorrect.com/realaudio/romans829.mp3


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 8, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> What is interesting about 1 Tim. 2 is the continual use of "all" / "every" (_pas_) throughout the whole chapter. I doubt that "all" in 2:5 can be understood as a subset of humanity.



And of course we'd have to deal with implications of universalism and God not getting what he "desires." Can man thwart God's desires?

Second, Satan is "in authority" over "this world" in a sense. He is even given a title of authority (prince and god). Do we pray and make thanksgiving for Satan?! It says "_all_ those in authortiy." And, the "all" is not qualified by "men," either. So, why can "all" be seen as a "subset" of "those in authority?"

Also, it looks as if Paul is instructing Timothy that all kinds of men are not admitted in worship. I hardly think Paul is thinking of pagans in verse 8. Does Paul mean by "everywhere" pagan temples, and "men" pagan men? That may be something he does desire, but that's not the context of v.8.

Lastly, note v. 1. That "all" isn't a universal "all" since that would make Paul contradict himself:

1 Timothy 5:4
But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn *first of all* to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

Thus when we look at the "alls" in chapter 2 we realize that it would be nonsense to view them universally.



> Furthermore, why does John qualify "world", with "whole" in 1 John 2:2? And does anything in the context show us that ethnic boundaries are in view? Again, I don't think so.



1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the *whole world*.

1 John 5:19
We know that we are children of God, and that the *whole world* is under the control of the evil one.

Let me get this straight, since John says "_whole_ world" in 2:2 that qualifier that causes you to "not think" that he's meaning it as a "subset" of every single human whoever. But, when we apply this logic to 5:19 we see that if "_whole_ world" is a universal quantifier of every one whoever we have major problems. Namely Paul and the believers being under the control of Satan!

I think unlimited atonement is a house of cards. I've rarely seen a case when it doesn't crumble down upon some minor poking and proding.


----------



## SouthernHero (Nov 9, 2007)

Thanks Tom, now I think that we are onto something...


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 9, 2007)

Dear Tom,

You have fine philosophical skills. However, I'm not sure you've quite grasped what exegesis is, and how language functions in this. Semantics is not syllogisms.



Tom Bombadil said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > What is interesting about 1 Tim. 2 is the continual use of "all" / "every" (_pas_) throughout the whole chapter. I doubt that "all" in 2:5 can be understood as a subset of humanity.
> ...



There is a methodological point here. You're explaining away a text by a prior system, rather than letting the text challenge the system. The text is infallible, our system is fallible.

As an aside, we have to be very careful about the argument concerning God's unmet desires. When we finite creatures attempt to grasp the infinite God there are times when we have to put our hand over our mouths and not speak when faced with _seeming _tensions; resolving the tension can end up distorting key texts. This is precisely what the Socinianians did with the incarnation and trinity.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Second, Satan is "in authority" over "this world" in a sense. He is even given a title of authority (prince and god). Do we pray and make thanksgiving for Satan?! It says "_all_ those in authortiy." And, the "all" is not qualified by "men," either. So, why can "all" be seen as a "subset" of "those in authority?"



Look at the context: it's speaking about "*kings *and all those in authority", i.e. secular human authorities. One can't suddenly import Satan and spiritual authority when it's contextually absent. Remember the semantic golden rule: words derive their meaning from their _context _(not the dictionary!). Not observing this is how the media end up twisting people's words to make them what they want.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Also, it looks as if Paul is instructing Timothy that all kinds of men are not admitted in worship. I hardly think Paul is thinking of pagans in verse 8. Does Paul mean by "everywhere" pagan temples, and "men" pagan men? That may be something he does desire, but that's not the context of v.8.



Again, this is not how exegesis works. Paul can't possibly mean pagan temples, he's speaking _universally _about believers in their gatherings. Context.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Lastly, note v. 1. That "all" isn't a universal "all" since that would make Paul contradict himself:



There are two "all"s in v. 1. Which one do you mean?



Tom Bombadil said:


> 1 Timothy 5:4
> But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn *first of all* to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.



The "all" here is not in the Greek text. It's a part of the English translation.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Thus when we look at the "alls" in chapter 2 we realize that it would be nonsense to view them universally.



If you understand how language works, you're going to struggle to conclude that. The word "all" appears in v.1 (twice), v. 2 (twice), v. 4, v. 6, v. 8, v. 11. Paul is using it regularly to drive a point home.

Have a look, for example, at 1 or 2 good commentaries on 1 Tim. (say Mounce and / or Towner) which have meticulous analyses of the argument.



Tom Bombadil said:


> > Furthermore, why does John qualify "world", with "whole" in 1 John 2:2? And does anything in the context show us that ethnic boundaries are in view? Again, I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, the problem you have is exegesis and understanding semantics.

The word for "world" (_kosmos_) in the Johannine corpus can have several meanings (as most words do). Hence, we can only determine what meaning the word would take from it's context.

In 1 John 5:19 "world" is used in the sense of humanity that is set against God. (Hence, God gave Jesus disciples "out of the world", i.e. took them out of the humanity turned against God). So "whole world" here means _all_ those who are bent against God, _all_ those who aren't children of God. "World" can't include believers here. Hence, it is a complete universal.

Moreover, note the use of "world" in John 3:16 _and_ 17. For the "world" that God loved, was the "world" Jesus was "sent into" (v. 17), and the "world" Jesus was sent into contained more than just the elect, but also the reprobate.



Tom Bombadil said:


> I think unlimited atonement is a house of cards. I've rarely seen a case when it doesn't crumble down upon some minor poking and proding.



The Socianians said the same thing about the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. That's because they tried to iron out the tensions in both doctrines using reason.

God bless brother.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 9, 2007)

> I have consistantly wondered what would those who heard this or read only this letter. (1 Tim or 1 John) We have the opportunity to utilyze the whole Inspired writ. If a person were to only hear these words spoken or read, had nothing else to use the "Analogy of Scripture" they would have to be a universalist. Unless of course Gill et others are right that they would have restricted the sense of these words in the original tongue. I do not know though.



That is part of the blessing of having a complete Bible; we know from other portions of Scripture that the Arminian interpretation cannot be true.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 9, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > I have consistantly wondered what would those who heard this or read only this letter. (1 Tim or 1 John) We have the opportunity to utilyze the whole Inspired writ. If a person were to only hear these words spoken or read, had nothing else to use the "Analogy of Scripture" they would have to be a universalist. Unless of course Gill et others are right that they would have restricted the sense of these words in the original tongue. I do not know though.
> 
> 
> 
> That is part of the blessing of having a complete Bible; we know from other portions of Scripture that the Arminian interpretation cannot be true.


Exactly my point and qualifications on the WCF portion and other confessions. I have always wondered how these were taken at the point of only hearing this or reading a simple section of the writ, without having the ability to look at other scripture to clarify.

AS an aside, I am 'good friends' with the cantor at the local temple here. Ill ask him how a jew would have interpreted these words....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 9, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > I have consistantly wondered what would those who heard this or read only this letter. (1 Tim or 1 John) We have the opportunity to utilyze the whole Inspired writ. If a person were to only hear these words spoken or read, had nothing else to use the "Analogy of Scripture" they would have to be a universalist. Unless of course Gill et others are right that they would have restricted the sense of these words in the original tongue. I do not know though.
> ...



Maybe the original audience knew that "all" and "world" could not mean ever last single human being - otherwise there would not be a hell, because if Christ has propitiated (turned away) God's wrath from everyone, then the Lord cannot send them to eternal condemnation.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 9, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...




I agree Daniel. But since the jews were blinded about so much, who knows....


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 9, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Moreover, note the use of "world" in John 3:16 _and_ 17. For the "world" that God loved, was the "world" Jesus was "sent into" (v. 17), and the "world" Jesus was sent into contained more than just the elect, but also the reprobate.



Marty:

I have absolutely no problem with these verses without putting a calvinistic presupposed grid over them as many have done.

To Me Christ is savior of all

King of all

Lord of all

Now to clarify what I mean is that Even though God himself reprobates people with no hope of salvation, Christ is still their king.

Look at the example of Pharaoh. Pharaoh's "magicians" could perform the same things moses/aaron did.

"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as The Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and Sorcerers, *and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake*. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs." (Exodus 7:8-12)

And the blood red nile, etc etc. 
WHat is the purpose of this?:

Exodus 10

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, *and that you may know that I am the LORD*

God was showing Pharaoh that He alone is God and there is no other like Him. The magicians could do somethngs, but our God is Bigger and stronger than the egyptian god. Jehovah is their God, they just dont know it...

I transfer this principal into the 'univeral passages' of the nt. WHen Paul says Christ is the savior of all men, he does not say He saves all men, but only Christ can save. He is even the king of the reprobate, they just dont know it until it is brought to their conscious and they are cast away.

I apply the same principal throughout the writ. Savior of the whole world, yes He is. From every tribe, nation and tongue. Not just Israel. _not only for the past, or us present believers, but for the sins of all who shall hereafter believe on him or come to God through him. The extent and intent of the Mediator's death reach to all tribes, nations, and countries. As he is the only, so he is the universal atonement and propitiation for all that are saved and brought home to God, and to his favour and forgiveness.M Henry_

But again this does not say He saves the whole world.



For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Tim. 4:10, NASB).


Of course he is the savior of all men, there is no other name one can be saved by. 

I hope this makes sense. Ill clarify more after dinner...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 9, 2007)

Just a side note - 

In the context of the bigger picture of the Gospel reaching the far ends of the world, and Christ's work to come as a Savior and Messiah in that world, the extent of salvation (*not* justification) extends to the whole world, all and everyone in the sense that it is not bound by culture or peoples (See Jesus' extraordinary dealing with Nicodemas in John 3 as an example - i.e. God so loved the world, not just the elect Jews).

Since that scope is wider than the "inwardly looking Jew" who had turned inward instead of outward (i.e. they did not "gather thier children" and so Christ' weeps for thier self-centered mis-piety), the Gospel extends to the far reaches of the wolrd. Chinese, Japanese, Phillipino, Brazilian, American, in fact "all", "the whole world", and like phrases.

Without the exstension of salvation to all those places, in fact the whole world, in fact "all" in that regard of a Jew (i.e. Paul, James, Peter, Jesus, etc.) mentioning the W....I....D....E....N....I....N....G of the Gospel to reach further, the Apsoltes would not have followed the commission to take the Gospel to the utter most parts of the world. God's elect reside there. In fact, they run into the far corners of the world, and God is not slack concerning His promise to "usward" and desires "us all" to repent and come to a knowledge of the truth (us being the church- His elect that are all over the world).

Thus, Christ's atonement is sufficient for ALL THE ELECT (its infinite nature for the elect had to be infinite in order to appease the sins of the elect against and inifnite God), and efficient for ALL THE ELECT (that it actually serves as a double imputation for the elect) all over the world. Without that broader context, in which entire nations may be effected (like England or America) by the Gospel, those passgaes would be more difficult to understand. It cannot be simply inside a single context (i.e. a letter) that those ideas are embraced, but in the larger context of world evangelism (i.e. Genesis-Revelation).


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 9, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Thus, Christ's atonement is sufficient for ALL THE ELECT (its infinite nature for the elect had to be infinite in order to appease the sins of the elect against and inifnite God), and efficient for ALL THE ELECT (that it actually serves as a double imputation for the elect) all over the world.



That's one interpretation of the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" formula. However, the reformed tradition contains other interpretations as well , and the reformed creeds allow for a variety of interpretation. I follow the Ursinus, Paraeus, Zanchi, Twisse, Hodge, Dabney _et. al._ interpretation.

The grand themes of Scripture must be able to cope with the exegesis of single texts, after all, the grand themes are constructed by individual texts. A grand theme must help explain individual texts not explain them away.

It still stands to reason that the "world" which God loved in John 3:16, is the "world" which Jesus entered in John 3:17. And as Dabney has pointed out the "world" Jesus entered (and loved) contained the reprobate.

Blessings.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 10, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> You have fine philosophical skills. However, I'm not sure you've quite grasped what exegesis is, and how language functions in this. Semantics is not syllogisms.



I don't know why you'd say this about yourself. Above you told us that 1 Tim. 2 uses "all" as a universal quantifier throuought the chapter, but below you fall into the trap of my reductio by claiming that all doesn't mean all universally in many of those passged. So, you effectively showed that your original reference to 1 Tim. 2, and all teh "alls" in it, was based on bad exegesis. 




JohnOwen007 said:


> There is a methodological point here. You're explaining away a text by a prior system, rather than letting the text challenge the system. The text is infallible, our system is fallible.



Uh, I was just pointing out that we'd have to be careful of some possibilities. The Bible is pretty clear that some will go to hell. So if an interpetation led to the conclusion that none would go to hell, then we'd have to reject it. I think systematics comes into play wheb doing exegesis.



> As an aside, we have to be very careful about the argument concerning God's unmet desires. When we finite creatures attempt to grasp the infinite God there are times when we have to put our hand over our mouths and not speak when faced with _seeming _tensions; resolving the tension can end up distorting key texts. This is precisely what the Socinianians did with the incarnation and trinity.



Like about God's *desire* to show his wrath (cf. Romans 11) to those vessles predestined to suffer it?



> Look at the context: it's speaking about "*kings *and all those in authority", i.e. secular human authorities. One can't suddenly import Satan and spiritual authority when it's contextually absent. Remember the semantic golden rule: words derive their meaning from their _context _(not the dictionary!). Not observing this is how the media end up twisting people's words to make them what they want.



I did look at the context. It's not obvious to me on "all means all" hermeneutics that it's speaking of only "earthly" authorities. but, say it is. Then we should thank God for Hitler, Hutu authorities, Idi Amin, Chief Judtice Taney - the guy who called blacks in the Dred Scott case "inferior beings." The "context" is the "ALL." I can just as arbitraily say that the "all" in "all men" is talking about "kinds of men" and no "the reprobate" and so you shouldn't "insert" reprobate into a discussion about kinds. Anyway, Marty, assertions aren't "exegesis." I also don't know why you continue to defend unlimited atonement every chance you get.



> Again, this is not how exegesis works. Paul can't possibly mean pagan temples, he's speaking _universally _about believers in their gatherings. Context.



Again, Paul said ALL. How would it feel if I just said, "Again, Paul is talking about all kinds of men, he can't possibly mean reprobates prepared for the wrath he desires to show them." Assertions aren't exegesis.



> The word for "world" (_kosmos_) in the Johannine corpus can have several meanings (as most words do). Hence, we can only determine what meaning the word would take from it's context.



Yeah, I know. But you said it was "curious' that Paul said 'whole.' But now you're shifting the goal posts. You DON'T mean that it is curious that he uses the word "whole" in front of "world" you mean that the "context" is curious. but of course you never made that argument - from context - you made it from the use of "whole" in front of world. I was meeting you on your own terms. using your own argument. You can't back pedal and then blame it on me.



> In 1 John 5:19 "world" is used in the sense of humanity that is set against God. (Hence, God gave Jesus disciples "out of the world", i.e. took them out of the humanity turned against God). So "whole world" here means _all_ those who are bent against God, _all_ those who aren't children of God. "World" can't include believers here. Hence, it is a complete universal.



And it doesn't have to include everyone in 1 Jon 2, either. You've done nothing to refute my point which was "whole world" doesn't necessarily mean "every single person individually." So, if you have *another* argument that you never gave, then give it.



> Moreover, note the use of "world" in John 3:16 _and_ 17. For the "world" that God loved, was the "world" Jesus was "sent into" (v. 17), and the "world" Jesus was sent into contained more than just the elect, but also the reprobate.



If the "world" is every single person whoever, then Jesus was "sent into it" to SAVE (v. 17) it. So, you have a failure Jesus. Shoot, even Kyle Reese saved Sarah Connor. He was sent "into this world" to save Sarrah Connor, and he did it. Jesus failed!

And, as you noted above, John's use of kosmos has mainly an *ethical* and not a *numerical* meaning. The "world" Jesus was sent into also included donkeys. Did Jesus die for them too?

Furthermore, let's substitute "everyone" for "world" in these verses:

“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 in you” (Jn 14:17).

“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” (Jn 15:19).

“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” (Jn 17:14).

“The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 Jn 2:17).

So, the "world" in Jon 3:16 doesn't need to refer to "every single person whoever."



> The Socianians said the same thing about the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. That's because they tried to iron out the tensions in both doctrines using reason.
> 
> God bless brother.



And the pluralists and universalists (salvation) said the same about hell because they said these teachings were too far above reason that emotion takes cenetr stage. Thus God's "wuv" would allow the Muslim and the hindu into heaven.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 10, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > You have fine philosophical skills. However, I'm not sure you've quite grasped what exegesis is, and how language functions in this. Semantics is not syllogisms.
> ...




Dear Tom, I really don't enjoy locking horns with you particularly when it gets personal. I'd rather leave the discussion than for either of us to use words we may later regret. Reading your reply just causes me to get too frustrated, not least because the medium of words on a computer screen can cause all sorts of misunderstandings (due to lack of visual cues etc.). Hence, I'm choosing to bow out of this one. I do recommend you read some books on exegesis though. By the way check out this. Feel free to have the last say.

May the Lord richly bless you dear brother.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 10, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It still stands to reason that the "world" which God loved in John 3:16, is the "world" which Jesus entered in John 3:17. And as Dabney has pointed out the "world" Jesus entered (and loved) contained the reprobate.
> 
> Blessings.



Brother Marty:

As I stated above, I went and spoke to my friend at the local temple. I asked the question regarding a jewish, rabinnical understanding of world, whole world, all, etc etc etc. His brief answer stated that a Jew in John's day reading this, and John being a Jew writing this, does not denote a head for head meaning. In scripture, when the word "us" "our'' is used, it specifically denotes Israel for a jew, and hence the chosen. When the word "world" is used, the meaning Jews/chosen throughout the lands, and "others" meaning gentiles/uncircumcised. There are 2 types of humanity for a jew, to take a line form Pink Floyd, it is either "Us and Them". And when whole world is said, it does have a restricted sense not head for head, but all nations and tongues. So looking at John 1John 2:2: _2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world._ A Jew would have understood this to mean, Christ atones for the sins of "our''(meaning chosen Israel), and not only that, but the sins of "them"/uncircumcised/nations and tongues. And the reason John was stressing this was becasue their is no more limited ethinic favor to Israel anymore. But putting "whole" before world is like putting "very' before good in creation of man. There is something "peculiar regarding Christs atonement. This peculiarity in just saying world would connotate the local region of jew/gentile. Just as when Herod ordered the census of the world. That meant a local area under his juridiction. John is emphasising the far reaching extent of His atonement.

And John 3:16 is directly connected to the creation account. When it speaks of God so loved the world,(He created), That is His providential care, which denotes not only a specific salvation for all who believe, but a general benevolence towards what He created for His designed purpose. lastly, he explained to me that God loving the world also has an aspect of Him Loving everything for His sake. For His glory. He does not "hate" anything He does in the sense of a failure according to His purpose.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 10, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > JohnOwen007 said:
> ...




It's not "personal." I don't know what gave you that idea? Presumably the section you quoted? I just said that what you said was applicable to yourself. So, am I to conclude that *you* thought that *you" were "getting personal?"

I do recommend you read some books on logic (preferably sections on reductios and arguments from analogy), though. I *do not* think the passage says what I am saying it says in light of my reductio. So, I don't know why you'd tell me that my failure is an *exegetical* onee when I don't think that the meaning I'm giving here can be "read out from" the text itself. Why is that, though? It's precisely because "all" doesn't mean ALL in 1 tim 2! You started off by arguing that a real good and strong case could be made that "all" in 1 Tim. 2 is universal in scope. I then applied this idea consistently. Your comeback was to say, "No! In those texts all does not mean all." Okay, that was rather my point, Marty!

Lastly, why are you telling me that I am exegeticaly off? Do you *really* believe that? Do you really believe that the text means all men whoever? Are you thus giving away the farm and telling us that you are Amyraldian? Are you then in violation of the rules you agreed to when joining the board? if you say, "No, I'm not saying that," then what is your point about the "exegesis?" I'm just pointing out that the "alls" in 1 Tim. 2 are not universal in scope. You implied otherwise in defense of the Amyraldian above. You have now seen the reductio and so you are saying that I need to do good exegesis because all doesn't mean ALL. Yeah, that's my point, Marty. Thanks for your time.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 10, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > It still stands to reason that the "world" which God loved in John 3:16, is the "world" which Jesus entered in John 3:17. And as Dabney has pointed out the "world" Jesus entered (and loved) contained the reprobate.
> ...



Dear Nicholas, thanks so much for your thoughts. However, the only way we can truly understand what John meant by "world" is by looking at the _text itself_. Talking to a modern Jew may help, but it's the _text_ that is our supreme authority.

As it stands, I follow R. L. Dabney. Unless we read different meanings into "world" in John 3:16-17 (which is exegetically dubious) my original point still stands.

Blessings brother.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 10, 2007)

> Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.



Talking to a Jewish scholar (I assume he has scholarly credentials?) to contextualize the text usage would seem to fit the parameters of exegetical examination.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 10, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> > Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to a Jewish scholar (I assume he has scholarly credentials?) to contextualize the text usage would seem to fit the parameters of exegetical examination.




Exactly. This is all I was attempting to do Marty. Not trying to prove anything either way. How would a jew at the time it was written understood it without using the Analogy of Scripture. Like I said, if all they had was 1 john, they wouldnot have the ability to go to Romans 9 like we can...

This jew is a scholar, and we looked at the text together. In a vaccuum. Alone. And of course the text is the authority. Revealing a truth to those whom it is given. 

Brother Marty, again, I am not saying or offering an opinion, just bringing in a non calvinist, who is not looking at it with a calvinist grid. And He still told me basically the same thing..

Blessings


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 10, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> > Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to a Jewish scholar to contextualize the text usage would seem to fit the parameters of exegetical examination.



Yes JD, it will provide a context. As will an understanding of second temple Judaism. But ultimately the meaning John has in his mind has to be derived from what _he wrote_, not someone else.

I'm only following Calvin's conclusions concerning "world" in John 3:16-17:

On v. 16:
"Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites *all men without exception* to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."

On v. 17:
"The word world is again repeated, that *no man* may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.

And no doubt, people will tell me to read that in context Calvin actually doesn't mean this etc. etc. Well I can only say that this is how I understand Calvin in context (in the original Latin). If someone differs, it's their right. But I beg to differ; in my mind Calvin is quite clear here.

Blessings JD.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 10, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> > Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to a Jewish scholar (I assume he has scholarly credentials?) to contextualize the text usage would seem to fit the parameters of exegetical examination.




This is likewise corroborated in the excellent book “Interpreting The New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis.” In chapter seven we are told by Joseph Fantin that “The goal of the use of background material is to help the modern reader place himself or herself in the shoes (or sandals) of the original audience (in some sense this is the goal of the entire exegetical process.”


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 10, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > > Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.
> ...



Calvin isn't the ultimate authority either.

And, *inviting* all men to life is not the same as *dying* for all men.

Lastly, as Steve Hays notes,

“Kosmos” doesn’t have a single meaning in NT usage generally or Johannine usage in particular. Rather, it has wide semantic domain. For example, Peter Cottrell & Max Turner list seven different senses (among others) for kosmos, including “the beings (human and supernatural) in rebellion against God, together with the systems under their control, viewed as opposed to God,” Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (1989), 176.

Which meaning is appropriate depends on the given context as well as overall theology of the author.

Likewise, Horst Balz defines kosmos in such ways as: “in the Johannine theology one finds again the basic elements of the Pauline understanding of kosmos in the extreme and intensified radicality of the estrangement and ungodliness of the kosmos…the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one,” EDNT 2:312.

And as Andrew Lincoln, in his recent commentary on John, explains, “Some argue that the term ‘world’ here simply has neutral connotations—the created human world. But the characteristic use of ‘the world’ (ho kosmos) elsewhere in the narrative is with negative overtones—the world in its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes. It makes better sense in a soteriological context to see the latter notion as in view. God loves that which has become hostile to God. The force is not, then, that the world is so vast that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it, but rather that the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great kind of love to love it at all,” The Gospel According to St. John (Henrickson 2005), 154. 


I'd also add that Philp Towner, in his commentary on 1 Tim. offers a reading consonant with popular Calvinist readings. He is not a Calvinist, and I'd assume Marty wouldn't tell him to "go learn how to do exegesis."

Amazon.com: The Letters to Timothy And Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament): Books: Philip H. Towner

I'd also add that calvin isn't the best *exegete* in the history of the Church.


----------

