Featured John 3:16 ...whosoever...

If we look at 3:17....."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. "

You doctrine has Christ failing to do what he was sent to do and doing what he was sent not to do. That being not "to condemn the world". Which is exactly what Christ will do. The word condemn comes from "krine". Which means to pass judgment.

John 5:22 "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son"

The Son is going to condemn. He is going to pass judgment. He passes judgment on those who are not his children. Those who are his children will not be subject to condemnation, not subejected to judgment. John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

So the world that will not face condemnation in John 3:17.....the world that he came to saved is those who pass "from death to life". To present Christ as failing to due what he sent out to do, is contradictory to scripture.

Isaiah 55:11 "so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. "

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

No, my doctrine does no such thing.

Here you are saying, "that the world might be saved through Him" means "that every single person making up the world of fallen mankind will be saved." See the problem. What if the "world" is made up of fallen individuals. Now if Christ saves even one, then He has successfully saved the world. And to this day, He is saving the world one sinner at a time.

So to repeat, my doctrine in no way has Christ failing to accomplish God's purpose and plan! God's plan was not to compel faith in a subset of the world, but to offer salvation to all, and save those whose faith He credits as righteousness. Totally different view of scripture, but one that does not conflict with any scripture. I do not have to say world means this here, but that there. God desires all men to be saved and therefore Jesus laid down His life as a ransom for all. Your doctrine rewrites this to say God desires all [kinds of] men to be saved and therefore Jesus laid down His life as a ransom for all [kinds of men].

If it was just these verses, perhaps one might see it as a possibility, but you have to rewrite or redefine verse after verse. What does Titus 3:4 say, "... and His love for mankind appeared...." Now certain unnamed versions will not include "for mankind" but the vast majority including the NKJV and NASB, and HCSB, and NET, and LEB and so forth do.

 

No, I saying world is all people. I'm saying it is all types of people. He loves all types, not just Jews.

 

But you do. He he wasn't sent her to judge the world(fallen mankind), why is he the judge the world(fallen mankind)? Why does he condemn the world(fallen mankind) if we are told that is not why God sent Him?

 

That's not Calvinism. God does not compel faith. He gives faith and repentance.

But you should, because the English word world as it is used in Bible translations does not mean the same thing every single time. It has a range of senses.

Matt. 20:28 :...to give his life as a ransom for many
Matt. 26:28 : This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 10:45 : ...to give his life as a ransom for many
Mark 14:24 : This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many

The Lord laid down his life for the sheep alone --which excludes everyone else --the goats. He died for all kinds of people and races --not only from among the Jews but from among the Gentiles too.

 

I asked you once, but you didn't answer.

I'll try again.

While what you posted may be within the semantic range of the words in question, there are more options. So how do you decide of all the options???

I know the answer... you assert your theology. And I don't fault you. That is correct as far as it goes. I just want you to admit it.

 

Yes, you should know the answer, I have posted it several times. We use context to determine which of the meanings is most probable.

You charge me with agenda driven translation, but the reverse is true.

1) Did Christ lay down His life as a ransom for all, or all kinds of men. Your translation adds to scripture in accordance with Calvinist doctrine.

2) Does God desire all men to be saved or all kinds of men to be saved? Your translation adds to scripture in accordance with Calvinist doctrine.

3) John 3:16 tells us that God loved fallen mankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son, so that every one believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

The difference, Van, is that I don't mind admitting that I use my theology to interpret. You won't admit it, but we all know it is true. I also use my interpretation to build my theology. This is the hermeneutical spiral.

Nothing in the context of John 3 would require the meaning for kosmos to be fallen mankind. In fact, I gave some reasons why it is quite plausible that John would have a different idea in mind.

And by the way... you say that the context drives your meaning for the semantic range of kosmos. But you didn't explain what you meant. What in the context makes you think that?

 

Hi GT, I addressed the reasoning in this very thread!! If you disagree, please address the reasons I provided. John 3:16 tells us that God loved fallen mankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son, so that every one believing into Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Since mankind is made up of the fallen, and Jesus provides salvation from that condition, fallen mankind more accurately expresses the message.

 

The question was why you think kosmos is best translated as "fallen mankind". Could you point me to the post where you explain that with the wide semantic range of kosmos you feel "fallen mankind" is the best choice? After all, you simply quoting your translation doesn't solve anything.

 

Brother Van,

The same Greek word for the word world used in John 3:16 is used repeatedly in the scriptures in a limited sense; however, this fact seldom receives proper recognition. In the Gospel of John alone there are such usages in:

Jn 12:19
"19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him."

Jn 14:19,
"19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Jn 15:18,
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Jn 16:20,
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

Jn 17:9,
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Jn 17:14,
"14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Jn 18:20.
20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Hi Brother Joseph, one of the mistakes is to believe John used "kosmos" to refer to each and every person. If each and every person is not in view, then "kosmos" does not apply, or so the thinking goes. But "kosmos" refers to fallen mankind, any or all of them.

In the whole world phrase, this is common place hyperbole, such as the whole world has embraced tattoos. So fallen mankind fits.

Ditto for John 14:19, when Jesus ascended, but His apostles remained, He fulfilled this statement, that the world, those of fallen mankind that had an opportunity to see Jesus in the flesh, would see Him no more.

Ditto for John 15:18, those fallen that rejected Christ are those who will hate His disciples.

Ditto for John 16:20, those in view who rejoice comprise the world.

Ditto for John 17:9, Jesus is praying specifically for His disciples that had been given Him out of the world of fallen mankind.

Ditto for John 17:14, fallen mankind hates those who reject the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

Ditto for John 18:20, Jesus taught openly in places where Jews met, taking the gospel "first to the Jews" as part of the world of fallen mankind.

Bottom line, John used "Kosmos" to refer to any or all of fallen mankind, or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

Lets look at a few more:

John 12:46, "I have come as a light into the world, in order that everyone who believes in me will not remain in the darkness." Clearly fallen mankind is in view.

John 15:19, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.

 

1) Did I say fallen mankind more accurately presents the message?
2) Did I say fallen mankind is indicated by the context?
3) Did I say John uses Kosmos to refer to fallen mankind, any or all of them, or to the corrupt value system of fallen mankind?

 

This is the simple logical construct found in John 3:16 --

If a person ("whosoever") does A ("believes") then they will receive B ("eternal life"), rather than C ("perish").​

The phrase immediately before this construct identifies Who is the object of life-giving belief ("His only begotten Son"), while the opening phrase of the verse identifies the Provider of the object of belief ("God"), detailing His reason ("loved") for providing the offer along with upon what or whose ("the world") behalf the offer is being presented.

Notice that God's loving the world does not necessarily mean that the world is the intended recipient or target of His offer. The love for the world is explicitly mentioned as the motive behind the offering. For example, someone could say: I love my spouse in such a way that it is what drives me to be kind to animals. Notice that the person has not said specifically that the love moves them to be kind to their spouse (criticize the analogy if you like, but it will not change the point).

Furthermore, this verse alone could imply a kind of 'works-salvation' since the terms of an offer will be met. Does it not teach that people 'gain' salvation by believing? Does it not teach that the 'wages' of unbelief is eternal destruction? We should not make too much (or too little) of one verse.

 

Interesting thoughts!

Lets consider "works based salvation." I would say no. They gain salvation by believing "into" Him. How do we, any person, get transferred from the realm of darkness (in Adam) into the kingdom of His Son? God alone transfers the person. Does our believing get it done, i.e. automatically? Nope, consider Matthew 7 and the folks engaged in ministry. But they were never transferred.

Next, lets consider the "world" once more. I am reminded of the poem with this sentiment in it, "if a clod be washed away by the sea, the continent is the less, so send not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Just as the sailor's love for humanity motivated him to be kind to Paul, God graciously gave His one of a kind Son so that every one [of the world of fallen mankind] believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life.

 

Bewildering thoughts!

What in the world are you talking about?

The sailor's love for humanity? Huh? "Motivated him to be kind to Paul" ? Say what? You are disoriented. Clods are in your way.

 

The world of fallen mankind is made up of fallen individuals, thus if any individual is saved, then the sin of the world has been taken away. God is reconciling the world to Himself, one sinner at a time.

 

Notice your own words: "gain salvation by believing". Without the belief (aka faith) there is no salvation. While God certainly executes whatever is the 'actual transfer' (the cosmic mechanics or divine accounting of imputation in His mind) God is bound by His word (ie. His oath, His promise, His offer, His contract) that if some person truly believes into (accepts the gift of) His Son then that person will receive (consequently shall gain, must reap reward of) eternal life.

Simple transaction. You do it daily; you pay the price requested for goods or services before you receive them. Once you have met the terms of the offer the goods or services are legitimately (legally, morally) your possession.

God does not go back on His word. Those folks in Matthew 7:21 were pretenders (counterfeits, religious posers). But the second part of the verse reinforces the principle: the 'doers' of the Father's will gain entrance to the kingdom. Both parties 'do' something: one gets rewarded, the other gets rejected. The difference is not in God. The difference is within the person.

Make no mistake about it: you are saved because you exercised your belief, and your deceased neighbor has gone to eternal punishment because he didn't. You did something he did not do. You are rewarded for your action, and he is condemned for the lack of the same. You confessed. You repented. You live by faith. Whatever you think you did that secured your salvation, he didn't do. And 'doing' something is work.

 

This kind of thinking could easily lead to universalism.

 

The issue is not that God requires us to put our faith, love and trust in or toward Christ. He does. The issue is who decides that we have met God's requirement? Do we or does God? God does!

Not everyone who says to Jesus, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven.... The idea is not that they were not actual believers to a degree, the idea is their "faith" was never credited as righteousness.

God keeps His word, but to say He promised if a person sincerely professes, they will be saved is mistaken. Recall the four soils of Matthew 13. The second and third soils believed to a degree, yet God did not credit their profession as righteousness.

No, this kind of think is the exact opposite of universalism thinking. A universalist would claim Jesus took "all the sin" of the world away. At the other end of the spectrum, I say Jesus is taking "the sin" of the world away, one sinner at a time. Whoever God places in Christ (through or based on God crediting the individual's faith in the truth as righteousness) has their sin, part of the world's sin, taken away.

The sin of the world was not taken away when Christ died, it is being taken away when God places a person in Christ. Thus we have the ministry of reconciliation.

Notice 2 Corinthians 5:19, God is reconciling the world to Himself through Christ. Thus only those God places in Christ are reconciled.

For God sacrificially loved fallen mankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son so that every one believing into Him will not perish but be having eternal life.