Limited Atonement Question...

[Jim Johnston]

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.

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.