Does God love everyone?

I am not sure about everyone, but one thing I know. God loves me.

 

Does this thread seem like three or four other threads on the same subject?

Oops, I just checked and found only one other thread, but I've seen this same subject debated in a bunch of other threads with different subjects.

In the General Baptist Discussion forum, webdog deals with it by way of a poll.

In the thread Calvinism and Soul-Winning, it's a different title, but rabbit-chasing led several into the discussion of the extent of God's love.

On second thought, maybe it's better to have a separate thread than to hijack other threads.





Never mind.

 

The context of Jn 3:16 does not lend itself to the interpretation of "world" = "every single person." The context is that God loved the world so much that He sent Christ to save the world, yet we know that Christ doesn't save every single person.

 

What is love?

 

I'd suggest you get a good lexicon or something and find out what the greek words are for "love" and "world".

Maybe that would help.

There is a difference between loving our children and saying "I'd love to have a piece of that cheesecake."

And when it says "world", is the greek word "humanity" or "the ground" or "planet Earth."?

 

That's what I was getting at.

 

The Greek word for "world" in that passage is "kosmos" - which means literally "ornament/adornment" and by inference means "world" as a planet.

 

But does it mean he loves this ball of rock and water, or its inhabitants? Would Jesus have any reason to suffer and die for the earth? What about Saturn? Uranus? The Moon?

 

Creation, not just mankind, does have alot to do with the redemptive purposes of Christ...

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:19-22)

 

Loved the world

God loved the world everyone in it that He sent His Son that whosoever that anybody believes shall not perish but have eternal life.

God didn't send His Son into the world to condemned but so that world might be saved through Him.

God does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, but only believers will be saved.

Has God failed? No, He never said all men will be saved, but He wants all to be saved.

Whosoever believes shall be saved and God will not fail. Will, shall is going to happen and might, wants is a desire.

If someone doesn't believe and is condemned they cannot blame God, because God and His words say's He wants all to be saved.

So if you walk away from your only hope Jesus. You can only blame your selves, because when you walk away you walk from what God wants not what He wills, but what He wants to His will be condemned.

 

Thoughts

John 3:16 can be wildly misunderstood. Many have taken it to mean “God love the world SOOooooo much that He gave is only begotten Son…” The Greek, however, does not say that.

A better translation would be: “God loved the world in this manner : He gave His unique Son…”

Having said that, I would have to say that God demonstrates His love for everyone (ie. all humans) in some way. This is not to say that God is going to save everyone.

I would argue God’s love for the elect is demonstrated in Christ’s perfect life and sacrificial and substitutionary death on the cross.

I would also argue God’s love for the non-elect is demonstrated by His patience with them. For example, when a non-believer sins, God does not immediately strike them dead.

So, in some way, He loves both. But, the love is not “equal.”

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

The best interpretation for scripture is scripture. The 'world' would be His elect from every nation.

Dan V.

 

When a person says "a better translation would be"...it means that they not relying on the Word of God, but on their own personal interpretation.

"When the PLAIN SENSE of Scripture makes COMMON SENSE, seek no OTHER sense."

Jesus Christ is NOT God's "unique" Son--He is God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Being only a "unique" Son, removes the deity of Christ. Only begotten is the correct translation.

The way in which God demonstrates His love for us isn't just some way--the demonstration of His love was shown on the cross of Calvary:

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

It wasn't Christ's perfect life that demonstrated His love for us (the elect are all the saved)--it was Christ's death and shed blood on the cross of Calvary--when He paid our sin debt in full.

Who are the non-elect? God is not willing that anyone should perish:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

God is NO respecter of persons--His love is equal--for ALL people.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (Acts 10:34)

 

Where is the scripture that says "The 'world' would be His elect from every nation"?

 

Linda64

Linda,

You wrote:

A few things here: A better translation is not an inerrancy problem. Simply going back to the original Greek text of John 3:16 shows how many people misinterpret this passage. Here, I’ll show you.

The word translated “so” by the King James Bible and so many other translations comes from the Greek word houtos. Houtos is an adverb which simply means “in this way, in this manner, thus.” To put it quite simply that is the definition of the word. It in no way relates to a comparison like “So much.”

So, by definition, the passage should read “For God in this manner loved the world: He gave his unique [I’ll get to that in a minute] Son...”

Secondly, the word translated, again, by the King James Bible as “Only Begotten” is an unfortunate translation. The Greek word is monogenes. Monogenes is an Accusative, Singular, Masculine Adjective modifying Son (the word Son being in the same case, number, and gender—as Greek requires). This word has two components—the prefix “mono” and the root word “genes.” “Mono,” of course, means one or only; “genes” means “kind” or “species.” In fact the word “genes” is used in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 12:28 when Paul talks about different “kinds” of tongues. So, the word here means “kind.” And, with the prefix “mono” it means only one of its kind, or “unique.”

Furthermore, this very word is used in Hebrews 11:17 where the author is discussing Abraham’s offering up of Isaac, his “only son.”

Now, we have a contextual problem. For, if as you suggest, the best translation is “only-begotten” then that must mean that Isaac was Abraham’s “only-begotten,” which we know Isaac was one of may children (Ishmael and the children Abraham had by Keturah).

Since the Bible does not contradict itself, it must be that “monogenes” means “unique.” Certainly Isaac was Abraham’s unique son—the son of the promise through which God’s blessings would flow. The term applied to Jesus in John 3:16 means the same—Jesus is the unique Son of the promise (the promise given by God to redeem a people for Himself; His promise to David about an eternal King, etc.). Jesus is the One through whom all the blessings of God flowed. Therefore, He is God’s “unique” son.

One of the challenges in discussing this issue is the doggedness with which many people hold to the KJV as THE inspired text, rather than consulting the original Greek.

Anyway, it is late and that is all for now. BTW, I love the Jim Elliott quote—truer word were never spoken.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Way of Life Encyclopedia

ONLY BEGOTTEN


A description of Jesus Christ as the unique, virgin-born Son of God (Joh 1:14,18; 3:16,18). Most modern Bible versions, following the corrupt Westcott-Hort Greek text, omit the word "begotten" from these passages. In so doing they create a serious theological error. Christ is not the only son of God. Adam is called the son of God (Lu 3:38); angels are called sons of God (Job 1:6); Christians are sons of God by adoption and regeneration (Php 2:15). Christ is not the only son of God, but He IS the only begotten son of God as the KJV and other Received Text-based Bibles correctly affirm. The phrase "only begotten son" does not mean Christ had a beginning. The Bible plainly says Christ had no beginning, but He Himself was in the beginning (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2; Joh 1:1-3; 1Jo 1:2).

 

The word "begotten" is antiquated and confusing to many readers of the KJV and other versions which render it the same way . It simply means : "The One and Only " , or "The Only", or "His Special Son" . The word "begotten" is not sacrosanct . As I reall , Tyndale did not always use that particular word in reference to Christ . Don't make it into a shibboleth .

 

The word "begotten" need not be confusing to any KJV reader. Just as Jesus opened the Scriptures to the two walking on the road to Emmaeus, He will open the understanding of the KJV to any who truly want to learn.

Begotten does not mean one and only, nor does it mean unique. Jesus was not the one and only son of the Father. The Bible declares Adam to be a son, Job declares angels to be sons, Paul wrote that those who are adopted into the family of God are sons. One and only is not a good translation of the word "begotten"

Wycliffe used the word 'bigetun' in the late 1300's.

Begotten has to do with being born of the Father. Jesus Christ was the only Son born of the Father through the birth process. Begat means 'Fathered' or 'Sired'.

As to the word being 'antiquated', antiquated does not mean it is of no use. 'Seek ye out the old paths...'

 

The greek for "only begotten" is "monogenis" or "monogenes" and there is a difference of opinion on how it should be translated.