Featured John 3:16-18

I have stated over and over again world in John 3:16 is referring to God's love of the human race. But that does not somehow translate to every individual.

The whosoever is connected to those that believe, not every individual. This is clarified in the following verses and the rest of Scripture. The ones that do not (and will not) believe are already condemned. They are not the ones Christ came for. If they were going to believe (because they were drawn by the Father) Christ would have died for them as well. But they will not believe and they were never going to believe.

That is not inconsistent with the word world, nor is it making the word world mean anything different than the human race. But race does not equal individual.

That is why I asked @SavedByGrace if God saved the human race in the days of Noah. He allowed a few to be saved. The plan was always only for a few to be saved. The call was given to all but they were never going to believe. But God did save the human race then by only saving a few and He saves the whole human race now by only saving some, not all.

 

You keep focusing on the word whosoever. But it is "whosoever BELIEVETH"

 

You're expounding Calvinist theology. We understand that. My question relates to the text, not the system of theology you're advancing. How, within the confines of John 3, do you prove that whosoever is not referring to any individual in the world of mankind?

 

Because it is not just whosoever, it is whosoever believeth. It is qualified.

 

That's the answer to the question: "which individual gets saved, whosoever?"
Answer: "No, whosoever believeth, not just whosoever".

But that's not the question here. The question, how, from John 3 alone, do you derive the sense that whosoever is not any one from the world of mankind?

 

I don't derive ANYTHING from John 3 alone. That is to mishandle the Word of God.

 

Again, you are misrepresenting the position even after you have been told this numerous times. Either now you are being willfully ignorant or purposefully deceitful.

 

Although noble on the surface (and what believer would not agree with that statement?), it is in fact a confession that the interpretation limiting the sense of world and whosoever to only the pool of the elect, as Calvinistically understood, is not possible in John 3 - which was the OP's point to begin with.

 

Except, AGAIN, that is not what I or any Calvinist I know is saying. You keep lying about our position. I am saying that John 3:16 actually does not deal with the topic of who is covered by the cross directly. World means human race. Race does not mean individual. You keep twisting it. Either learn what we actually believe or you are a liar if you keep peddling the same false information after being correct. That is sin and you should repent.

 

Bearing false witness. Repent.

 

Sadly you keep lying about our position.

 

I think our points have been sufficiently made to any reader.

 

Your points are based on strawman arguments so while they may be sufficiently made, they are false.

 

My Bible is a late 18th century edition of an original translation that was begun in roughly 1604 and finished in 1611 in England.

Grammatically ( using the language of its day ), I can find very little, if anything wrong with it when I compare it to the Greek of the New Testament or with the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
Also, the Greek that I trust is the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus":

John 3 Interlinear Bible
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh3.pdf

If you wish to review the usage of the words being translated, then I invite you to do so.

Lastly,
I don't use Young's Literal ( which was translated using a collated Greek text of some 100 manuscripts and other bit and pieces, sometimes referred to as the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, I believe ), although I find it to be helpful on occasion.

If people wish to ridicule me for that, then that is their prerogative.
I'll wish them well and God's blessings anyway.

 

The points are based on lies. Strawman arguments.