Featured John 3:16-18

I'm not forcing the Bible to agree with anything. I'm agreeing with the Bible. You are making the argument that the human race has to mean every individual and you are seeking people that agree, or seemingly agree, with you to make your case. Yet you just admitted that in Genesis that race doesn't mean every individual. So why do you try and force that into John 3:16?

You are reading your theology into the passage. You believe firmly Christ died for every individual. I do not see that in Scripture, I see the opposite. But you force that reading into John 3:16 when the reading does not require that.

 

By the way, you cherry pick Calvin out of context as well. You should read the next paragraph.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father—that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.
John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 125.

 

Luke 22 says nothing about Christ dying for Judas.

 

I'm not reading my personal theology into this. By the way, you also took Dabney out of context. Not that I am surprised.

 

You have the burden of proof. You claim that Luke 22 explicitly states Christ died for Judas. I am challenging you on that. Luke 22 is the last supper. The only thing that comes remotely close to saying that is when he is passing the bread and cup and saying my body broken for you, my blood spilled for you, etc. However, he is giving an illustration. Nowhere in that does he say "I died for Judas." You are reading that into the passage.

The very thing you are accusing me of, that being only interested in my personal theology rather than what the Bible teaches, is the exact thing you yourself are doing.

 

John 3:16 is not an invitation, it’s a statement of fact.

 

The way I understand the context, which to me is carried out in the Bible in 3 expanding fashions ( immediate, greater and greatest ), "world" can be understood, depending on the text, in several ways.

I would not substitute a single word, because to do so would be to invite the wrath of God...
But, if someone were to ask me how I understand the word "world" here, I would tell them essentially this:

"For God so loved the world ( Gentiles as well as Jews ), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
"For God did not send His Son into the world ( the physical realm of men ) to condemn the world ( same ), but that the world ( Gentiles as well as Jews ) might be saved."

As for the matter of God loving each and every person the same way, please see the following:
Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5-6, Romans 9:13 and several others.

 

Because the first time the Lord came was not do judge the world, but to give His life a ransom for many ( Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, Hebrews 9:28 ), which I see as in context with and is repeated in passages like Titus 2:14 and 2 Corinthians 8:9.

Amen, sir. and I quite agree.
As an illustration of this evidence that all who believe will continue to do so ( by the power of God keeping them, 1 Peter 1:5 ):

In Matthew 13, I see both the parables of the sower and of the tares;
Based on those, I would say that at least 3 out of 4 people who hear God's word, physically, will not continue to believe.
So, those whose "faith" fails them under trials and tribulations of this life, were never His sheep and were never born again.

They were never sealed by the Holy Spirit ( Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30 ), were never given to the Son by the Father ( John 6:39, John 17:2 ), were never chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4 ), were never predestinated to their adoption as children ( Ephesians 1:5 ), were never chosen to their salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ) and they were never written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world ( Revelation 17:8 ).

They were never foreknown, predestinated, called, justified or glorified ( Romans 8:29-30 ).
Jesus never knew them ( Matthew 7:21-23 ).

 

The underlined is part of why I don't follow John Calvin's teachings, and stick to the Scriptures alone.
As a Christian, I'm not beholden to any man's teachings except the Lord Jesus.

I have no idea who Robert Dabney was, but I would have disagreed with him, especially over this statement.

 

Here's something to consider, at least from my perspective...

Note that it says that He gave His Son for a purpose, my friend.
There is no offer, but a promise.
That "whosoever believeth" should not perish, but have everlasting life....
Not so that everyone would.

It's limited to the "whosoever believeth".
Question:

If God loved all men equally, why limit His gifts to only those that believe on His Son and His sacrifice?
Why not save everyone, instead of setting a "list of requirements" in front of them?

 

Lets try another translation: God loved mankind in this way, He gave is one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

My Bible says "should not", which is the past tense form of "shall not".
To me, it's unconditional, or rather conditioned on God's work and not ours as men.