"For God did not send his Son into the world. . ."

[thatbrian]

Many have misunderstood the word, "World" in John 3:16 to mean all people in the world, but just reading the very next verse prevents such a mistake.

If John 3:16 means people then John 3:17 would have to read: "For God did not send his Son into every person. . ." but that makes no sense, in the context.

 

[HankD]

Say what!?

John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[InTheLight]

Many have misunderstood the word, "World" in John 3:16 to mean all people in the world, but just reading the very next verse prevents such a mistake.

If John 3:16 means people then John 3:17 would have to read: "For God did not send his Son into every person. . ." but that makes no sense, in the context.

This is laughably the worst strawman you've ever posted. A+ for creativity!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[thatbrian]

Say what!?

John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I break this down for you, Hank.

If you interpret, "world" in verse 16 to mean, "all people", then, if you are to be consistent, you must apply that to verse 17 as well, which would make it read: For God sent not his Son into all people to condemn all people; but that all people through him might be saved.

 

[utilyan]

I'll remember that when someone calls me the biggest idiot in the world.

He does not really mean idiot of all people, but just that I am a dumb Calvinist.

 

[HankD]

I break this down for you, Hank.

If you interpret, "world" in verse 16 to mean, "all people", then, if you are to be consistent, you must apply that to verse 17 as well, which would make it read: For God sent not his Son into all people to condemn all people; but that all people through him might be saved.

Brian, concentrate on the phrase "might be saved" it is in the subjunctive mood

Subjunctive Mood — this is what is called the mood of probability, which refers to potential events as probably occurring but not for certain; thus, it is used to indicate that potential happenings will occur if certain actions take place (on a conditional basis).

http://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2012/05/23/emphatic-negations-in-biblical-greek/

Technically therefore IMO a case cannot be made for the subjunctive mood as to the actual quantity of salvation of the world whether partially or in toto.
Technically speaking either is within the realm of possibility

Other passages are necessary for the assumption of quantity.

e.g.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

HankD

 

[thatbrian]

Brian, concentrate on the phrase "might be saved" it is in the subjunctive mood

http://blogs.blueletterbible.org/blb/2012/05/23/emphatic-negations-in-biblical-greek/

Technically therefore IMO a case cannot be made for the subjunctive mood as to the actual quantity of salvation of the world whether partially or in toto.
Technically speaking either is within the realm of possibility

Other passages are necessary for the assumption of quantity.

e.g.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

HankD

Reaching, Hank.

 

[Darrell C]

I break this down for you, Hank.

If you interpret, "world" in verse 16 to mean, "all people", then, if you are to be consistent, you must apply that to verse 17 as well, which would make it read: For God sent not his Son into all people to condemn all people; but that all people through him might be saved.

You are imposing into the text something not there. When Scripture is dealing with "all" then it uses the word "all:"


Romans 3:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


Here we have both "world" and a clear contextual reference to "all" people. This is what John 3:16 and 17 are referring to. The context there speaks of condemnation contrasted with salvation, and it is made clear in Scripture that God has given opportunity to "all" to be saved, in all Ages, through providing His will to man for that purpose (that they may obey His Will).

Consider:


2 Peter 3:9
King James Version (KJV)

9 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.


It is God's desire that all men be saved, but all will not be saved. Many will reject the Gift of God.


God bless.

 

[thatbrian]

You are imposing into the text something not there. When Scripture is dealing with "all" then it uses the word "all:"


Romans 3:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


Here we have both "world" and a clear contextual reference to "all" people. This is what John 3:16 and 17 are referring to. The context there speaks of condemnation contrasted with salvation, and it is made clear in Scripture that God has given opportunity to "all" to be saved, in all Ages, through providing His will to man for that purpose (that they may obey His Will).

Consider:


2 Peter 3:9
King James Version (KJV)

9 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.


It is God's desire that all men be saved, but all will not be saved. Many will reject the Gift of God.


God bless.

I'm arguing the point of my theological opponents. If you oppose the OP, then you oppose the Arminian error. In which case, I congratulate you.

 

[Darrell C]

I'm arguing the point of my theological opponents. If you oppose the OP, then you oppose the Arminian error. In which case, I congratulate you.

Sorry Brian it looked like you were denying that "the world" doesn't speak of "all people." In John 3:16 that is basically the case. For the record I do oppose the Arminian errors, lol, but also those of Calvinistic persuasion.

Many have misunderstood the word, "World" in John 3:16 to mean all people in the world, but just reading the very next verse prevents such a mistake.

I would have to disagree, because John 3:16, while referring to all peoples of the world, does not impose the concept that the Lord came so all peoples would be saved, but that they might be saved through belief in Him (specifically the Cross, John 3:14-16).

If John 3:16 means people then John 3:17 would have to read: "For God did not send his Son into every person. . ." but that makes no sense, in the context.

Agreed, it does not make sense, because you impose something into it that is not there, as already mentioned. On that basis your counterparts can break down the reasoning, therefore nullify the argument you wish to present. We can't exchange "every person" for "world" in the argument because most should recognize that is not consistent with the context.

Maybe you could clarify what you are trying to say for me a little. Are you trying to argue for the view that it is only for the Elect that Christ came?


God bless.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

"the world", here, means "all of humanity"
The King James says "might", which is a form of the word "may"
So verse 17 means that Jesus did not come here to condemn all of humanity, but to make it POSSIBLE for all of humanity to be saved. Will all humanity repent and be saved? No, and neither will most Calvinists give up their Calvinism.