Calvinism and John 3:16

[SavedByGrace]

Not really. You're describing "love" (here αγαπαω) as a noun, not a verb. The focus is on what God as the subject does, not what the type of love is. What you're missing here is the word οὕτως, which means "thusly" or "like so." So, John is defining what the love of God is in this case: Sending his Son. Is that slavific? Sure! But, it's not the meaning of "love" here.



There are plenty of cases where "the world" does not and cannot mean "the entire human race." In fact, in John 3:17 where it says "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" the phrase "the entire human race" would not work. We could not say "For God did not send his Son into [the entire human race]. You might make the argument that "the entire human race" would work in some places--which it does--but it doesn't work in every one. So, your chose for it in 3:16 is entirely subjective. And, what is more, "the entire human race" cannot mean everyone without exception, otherwise you'd have to be a universalist at some point.



This is wrong. πᾶς is not where the KJV gets "whosoever." And, I might add, the translation "whosoever" is wrong. The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter). The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark).

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the one believing" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender. Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."



No statement of ability is implied by the text, you've read that into it here.



I--for one--do not think κοσμος refers to the elect only.



This is very wrong. First, the subjunctive does not equal conditional. There are conditional sentences in Greek--several classes, in fact. But, they are formulaic and that formula is not present here.

The verb is subjunctive, but it is in a purpose clause (denoted by the word ἵνα). Since it is a purpose clause the subjunctive actually functions more like an indicative. Here, the subjunctive is not stating possibility of an action, but it is stating the intended result of the primary action (God sending His son into the world--not to condemn it--in this case). So, all this is telling us is that salvation (as opposed to condemnation) comes because God sent His son into the world.

Nothing here is said of why "choices" may or may not be made. In fact, John 3:16-18 doesn't mention at all why anyone who believes wound-up believing. You'd have to go to John 3:3--which says you have to be "born again from above."

The Archangel

Context is very importrant in understanding what is said

There is no doubt to the open mind, that the "love", here is to do with "salvation". It is because God so loves the world, that He sent...

τον κοσμον, again in the context, can only mean the entire human race, which is what most of the Greek lexicons say

J H Thayer

“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)

W Ardnt & F Gingrich

“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)

Edward Robinson

“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)

John Parkhurst

“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)

S T Bloomfield

“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)

G Kittle and G Friedrich

“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)

W E Vine

“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

In our immediate context, “kosmos” is used four times, once in verse 16, and three times in verse 17. If we were to limit its use in verse 16, to refer only to the “elect”, then we must carry on this use in the following verse also. Where we read:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”

The believer is said not to come into any “judgment”, or “condemnation”, as they have “passed from death into life”, which has already said to have taken place, when the sinner trusted in Jesus for their salvation.

You are wrong in saying that the KJV did not get "whosoever" from πας. "πας ο πιστευων", literally means, "everyone who believes", which is why the article is used, where "πιστευων", is also masculine, singular. You are also wrong that "πας" cannot mean "whosoever/whoever", which is so translated by, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB 77/95, ASB, WEB, etc

You are also wrong to say that the verb "σωθῇ", does not mean "conditional" as it translated in many English versions as "MIGHT BE saved", which means "possibility"

 

[The Archangel]

You are wrong in saying that the KJV did not get "whosoever" from πας. "πας ο πιστευων", literally means, "everyone who believes", which is why the article is used, where "πιστευων", is also masculine, singular. You are also wrong that "πας" cannot mean "whosoever/whoever", which is so translated by, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB 77/95, ASB, WEB, etc

You are also wrong to say that the verb "σωθῇ", does not mean "conditional" as it translated in many English versions as "MIGHT BE saved", which means "possibility"

I most certainly am not wrong just because you think so. If I am, explain it from the Greek.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

There is no doubt to the open mind, that the "love", here is to do with "salvation". It is because God so loves the world, that He sent...

Ah... I see... Because I disagree with you, I do not have an "open mind." Ok.....

τον κοσμον, again in the context, can only mean the entire human race, which is what most of the Greek lexicons say

J H Thayer

“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)

W Ardnt & F Gingrich

“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)

Edward Robinson

“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)

John Parkhurst

“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)

S T Bloomfield

“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)

G Kittle and G Friedrich

“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)

W E Vine

“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

And now... I see again.... Since I disagree with you, I'm not "honest." Ok.....

In our immediate context, “kosmos” is used four times, once in verse 16, and three times in verse 17. If we were to limit its use in verse 16, to refer only to the “elect”, then we must carry on this use in the following verse also. Where we read:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”

The believer is said not to come into any “judgment”, or “condemnation”, as they have “passed from death into life”, which has already said to have taken place, when the sinner trusted in Jesus for their salvation.

In spite of your calling into question my intelligence and honesty, this seems to be an example only of your copy-and-pasting ability. Also, it's quite the strawman, since I do not claim "world" is equal to "elect." But, thank you for the insults.

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

Ah... I see... Because I disagree with you, I do not have an "open mind." Ok.....



And now... I see again.... Since I disagree with you, I'm not "honest." Ok.....



In spite of your calling into question my intelligence and honesty, this seems to be an example only of your copy-and-pasting ability. Also, it's quite the strawman, since I do not claim "world" is equal to "elect." But, thank you for the insults.

The Archangel

now you are acting like a silly child!

I am speaking GENERALLY, and NOT saying that YOU don't have a open mind, and not honest!

The fact that you admit that you do not believe that "The World", is "the elect" here, it is YOU who is using strawman arguments! If not "the elect", then what John Calvin says is true, "EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION"

There is not ONE thing that you have said, that has in any way countered what I have written in #2!

Your "examination" of the Greek is faulty, and has ZERO to do with the language or use, and more to do with "theology". You have not disprovern what I have said from the Greek. The English versions are also against what you argue!

There is not ONE who is "Reformed/Calvinist", who can disprove that in this passage in John 3:16-18, that it is very clear, Jesus Christ indeed Died for the entire human race, every single one, including Judas!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I most certainly am not wrong just because you think so. If I am, explain it from the Greek.

The Archangel

interesting how @SovereignGrace can use "winner" for what you say, and yet has FAILED to disprove what I have said in #2! Typical "Reformed", who make much noise, about NOTHING!

 

[AustinC]

now you are acting like a silly child!

I am speaking GENERALLY, and NOT saying that YOU don't have a open mind, and not honest!

The fact that you admit that you do not believe that "The World", is "the elect" here, it is YOU who is using strawman arguments! If not "the elect", then what John Calvin says is true, "EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION"

There is not ONE thing that you have said, that has in any way countered what I have written in #2!

Your "examination" of the Greek is faulty, and has ZERO to do with the language or use, and more to do with "theology". You have not disprovern what I have said from the Greek. The English versions are also against what you argue!

There is not ONE who is "Reformed/Calvinist", who can disprove that in this passage in John 3:16-18, that it is very clear, Jesus Christ indeed Died for the entire human race, every single one, including Judas!

sbw, you simply do not see the contradiction in your posts. You ultimately are calling for universalism, but you don't know it and cannot conceive that it is what you are doing.

 

[The Archangel]

now you are acting like a silly child!

I am speaking GENERALLY, and NOT saying that YOU don't have a open mind, and not honest!

The fact that you admit that you do not believe that "The World", is "the elect" here, it is YOU who is using strawman arguments! If not "the elect", then what John Calvin says is true, "EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION"

How many possible meaning of κοσμος did you list? Several. And you want to reduce it to only two? That's the Either/or fallacy.

There is not ONE thing that you have said, that has in any way countered what I have written in #2!

Now... that's funny! You just didn't like what I wrote, and you didn't engage with the pertinent areas of my response. You copy-cut-and-pasted stuff, while throwing in a bit of color commentary, but you didn't engage at the level I was on.

Your "examination" of the Greek is faulty, and has ZERO to do with the language or use, and more to do with "theology". You have not disprovern what I have said from the Greek. The English versions are also against what you argue!

There is not ONE who is "Reformed/Calvinist", who can disprove that in this passage in John 3:16-18, that it is very clear, Jesus Christ indeed Died for the entire human race, every single one, including Judas!

So "There is not ONE who is "Reformed/Calvinist", who can disprove that in this passage in John 3:16-18, that it is very clear" means that you have a closed mind, then.

And, you must have missed these parts of my post. Again, you simply said.. "nah..." rather than saying why or how it was wrong with any accuracy.

This is wrong. πᾶς is not where the KJV gets "whosoever." And, I might add, the translation "whosoever" is wrong. The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter). The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark).

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the one believing" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender. Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

This is very wrong. First, the subjunctive does not equal conditional. There are conditional sentences in Greek--several classes, in fact. But, they are formulaic and that formula is not present here.

The verb is subjunctive, but it is in a purpose clause (denoted by the word ἵνα). Since it is a purpose clause the subjunctive actually functions more like an indicative. Here, the subjunctive is not stating possibility of an action, but it is stating the intended result of the primary action (God sending His son into the world--not to condemn it--in this case). So, all this is telling us is that salvation (as opposed to condemnation) comes because God sent His son into the world.

Nothing here is said of why "choices" may or may not be made. In fact, John 3:16-18 doesn't mention at all why anyone who believes wound-up believing. You'd have to go to John 3:3--which says you have to be "born again from above."

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

There are plenty of cases where "the world" does not and cannot mean "the entire human race." In fact, in John 3:17 where it says "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" the phrase "the entire human race" would not work.

John 18:20 fits perfectly.

 

[The Archangel]

John 18:20 fits perfectly.

True. "World" here cannot mean everyone without exception. John's usage of κοσμος is varied in his Gospel.

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

John's usage of κοσμος is varied in his Gospel.

Other than meaning the 'Old Covenant arrangement' how else did John use kosmos?

 

[The Archangel]

Other than meaning the 'Old Covenant arrangement' how else did John use kosmos?

Here is an article I've found to be helpful. Also, the BDAG lexicon lists some eight possible definitions of the word. Perhaps John doesn't use everyone of the eight meanings? But, to reduce it to "every person without exception" would be incorrect.

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

Here is an article I've found to be helpful. Also, the BDAG lexicon lists some eight possible definitions of the word. Perhaps John doesn't use everyone of the eight meanings? But, to reduce it to "every person without exception" would be incorrect.

The Archangel

Can you please post here what you personally believe John 3.16-18 teaches

 

[Van]

For God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have everlasting life.

Calvinism denies Christ died as a ransom for all humanity, that world in John 3:16 refers to humanity, and that a person is able in an unregenerate state to believe in Christ such that God will credit their faith as righteousness and place them into Christ's spiritual body.

Petty much a total rejection of the gospel.

 

[kyredneck]

Here is an article I've found to be helpful.

Thanks AA. It is informative, especially concerning the usage history of kosmos. One major error I see in the article is this statement:

"...The older general sense of “order” for κόσμος is not found at all in the New Testament....." I disagree.
How else can John 18:20 be interpreted to mean other than the 'ordered system/arrangement of the Jews', which I think applies elsewhere in the NT.

to reduce it to "every person without exception" would be incorrect.

Agree.

 

[canadyjd]

I’ll try one more time @SavedByGrace. You say you wish to discuss scripture in context and that’s what I’m trying to do with you.

The “whosoever” of John 3:16 has already been qualified by Jesus’s earlier comment in Chapter 3 that “the wind (Spirit) blows where He wills… so is everyone born of the Spirit.”

Clearly, Jesus is saying those who are born again attain that spiritual rebirth by the will of God Holy Spirit.

If you disagree, then explain in context how the “will” of God Holy Spirit should be understood in this context.

Additionally, your claim that “love” in John 3:16 is referring to God’s love in salvation toward all of humanity without exception must be reconciled with 1 Corinthians 13:8 which says “love never fails”.

The only logically conclusion is to accept universal salvation.

If you disagree, please explain how the love of God in salvation toward all humanity fails to produce universal salvation?

Thank you in advance for addressing scripture only.

peace to you

 

[SavedByGrace]

I’ll try one more time @SavedByGrace. You say you wish to discuss scripture in context and that’s what I’m trying to do with you.

The “whosoever” of John 3:16 has already been qualified by Jesus’s earlier comment in Chapter 3 that “the wind (Spirit) blows where He wills… so is everyone born of the Spirit.”

Clearly, Jesus is saying those who are born again attain that spiritual rebirth by the will of God Holy Spirit.

If you disagree, then explain in context how the “will” of God Holy Spirit should be understood in this context.

Additionally, your claim that “love” in John 3:16 is referring to God’s love in salvation toward all of humanity without exception must be reconciled with 1 Corinthians 13:8 which says “love never fails”.

The only logically conclusion is to accept universal salvation.

If you disagree, please explain how the love of God in salvation toward all humanity fails to produce universal salvation?

Thank you in advance for addressing scripture only.

peace to you

What you say does not address what I have already stated in #2. There can be no doubt that WORLD in verse 16 EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION as even the father of Calvinism says!

Only those out of the WORLD who believe will be saved, those who do not believe will be condemned

There CANNOT be any other interpretation of the passage

 

[Reformed1689]

There is not ONE who is "Reformed/Calvinist", who can disprove that in this passage in John 3:16-18, that it is very clear, Jesus Christ indeed Died for the entire human race, every single one, including Judas!

Except that is not what it says. It says he died for the human race. Specifically, those who would believe. It says nothing about individuals. You write that in.

 

[canadyjd]

What you say does not address what I have already stated in #2. There can be no doubt that WORLD in verse 16 EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION as even the father of Calvinism says!

Only those out of the WORLD who believe will be saved, those who do not believe will be condemned

There CANNOT be any other interpretation of the passage

Ok, I’ll comment on your post #2.

You are correct “world” means all of humanity, or more specific God’s love for His creation includes love for all people. You are correct “so loved” means “in this way”, that Jesus would be the sacrifice for sin and by faith in Jesus people would be saved.

That really doesn’t change what scripture reveals about God choosing, electing, some for salvation and passing over others.

I view it as God so loved His creation He decided not to allow all to perish in sin but chose some for salvation and sent Jesus to accomplish that end.

My view is consistent with the passages in John concerning those who are saved are born by the will of God and spiritual birth is by the will of God Holy Spirit.

It is also consistent with a view that rejects universal salvation which seems to be the logical conclusion of your view.

I’ll not repeat my questions, but I’ll let you go back and address them please.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

…
Only those out of the WORLD who believe will be saved, those who do not believe will be condemned

There CANNOT be any other interpretation of the passage

It actually says they are condemned already, not that they will be condemned.

This is consistent with passages earlier in John speaking of the “light” coming into the world but the world rejecting the light because their deeds were evil. and those that “practice truth come to the light” and that their deeds are revealed to be “wrought in God” or revealed to be a “work of God.”

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

here goes again for those who missed my earlier posts on this passage

"For so God loved the world in this way: He gave His Unique Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Anyone who believes in Him is not judged, but anyone who does not believe is already judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"

In the first place, the "Love" here of God, in the context, is clearly His "Saving Love", as the passage is talking about the salvation of believing sinners

In the second place, again, contextually, "τὸν κόσμον", can only mean "the entire human race", or better as John Calvin says, "everyone without exception". It is NOT to be "limited" as some do, for the purpose of their "theology", mean "the elect". This argument, as we shall see is absurd!

In the third place, the Greek adjective, "πᾶς", has the meaning, "everyone", the KJV and others read, "whosoever". These are those from "τὸν κόσμον".

In the fourth place, the "πᾶς" here are limited to those, "who believe in Him (Jesus Christ)", and not "τὸν κόσμον"

In the fifth place, there are two classes of "τὸν κόσμον" in this passage, "ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν"; and "ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων", those "who believe", and those "who do not believe". This means the "ability" to either "accept", or "reject", Jesus Christ.

In the sixth place, if we were to understand "τὸν κόσμον", as only "the elect", then it is clear from the passage, that there are "some" of "the elect", who will be saved and have eternal life; and there are the others, "who do not believe", who are judged, "because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God". Which means there are those "unbelieving" of "the elect", who will be eternally lost.

In the seventh place, it says, "ἀλλ' ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ", where the verb "σωθῇ", is in the subjunctive, meaning "conditional", "might be saved". the "condition" here is "believing".

One of the clearest and strongest passages against "Particular Redemption", The "L" in TULIP.

I am classical Arminian. Having said that, you, nor anyone else can prove Calvinism wrong. High Calvinism has no fatal holes in it. Bastardized lower forms of Calvinism do, but pure High Calvinism does not.