Son of JOHN 3:16 :)

[George Antonios]

Why can it NOT be the world of people described in Revelation 5:9 (those who will believe from every nation, tribe and tongue) that God so loved in John 3:16 that he sent his son that they might not perish? Why MUST God love the reprobate that hate him and will continue to hate him even as they are dragged screaming and cursing into Hell resolute in their rebellion? Explain why it is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE that God might not "love" them enough to waste Christ's precious blood by pouring out the Bread and Wine of Communion into the mud in honor of those that refuse to take it (and never will)?

You claim that is is grammatically not possible for it to mean that, but I see no real proof of your claim.

It is. No Reformed Theologian would agree with you, only the Bible bending semi-Pelagians.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

The kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation were redeemed ...out of the world. They therefore, by definition, cannot be the world (John 3:16) but only a subset of the world (John 3:16).

As to the classic semi-Pelagian canard, we'll shoot that duck another day.

I didn't bend anything. It's the plain reading. I'm saying world = world.
You're redefining world as "world of the elect".
Who's bending?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[atpollard]

I didn't bend anything. It's the plain reading. I'm saying world = world.
You're redefining world as "world of the elect".
Who's bending?

In reverse order, the comment on 'Semi-Palagian bending' was intended as a teasing response to your baiting statement: "This is plain, straightforward, and non-controversial." (Of course the Calvinism/Arminianism aspect of John 3:16 is completely non-controversial)

OK, so World = World.
Does John 3:17 = God failed?

Explain how the two verses fit together since adjacent verses in the same paragraph must share context.
You have already rejected my answer.

[John 3:16-17 NASB] 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

[John 3:16-17 YLT] 16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. 17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;

[John 3:16-17 CSB] 16 "For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

 

[George Antonios]

OK, so World = World.
Does John 3:17 = God failed?

A) The law could not communicate righteousness (Gal.3:21). Did the law fail?
Or was it rather that the law was spiritual yet men were carnal so that the fault was in man that the law did not effect righteousness? As it is written:

• Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, ---> Why? Because the law itself was weak? No:
• in that it was weak through the flesh, ---> The instrument was weak.

Likewise, the failure is not attributable to God, to the sinful heart of man which rejects the gospel.
God purposed to bring the initial Exodus generation into the promised land, but that didn't happen save for 2 men.
Was the failure attributable to God, or men?

Please understand: God does, in his own power and will, choose to limit his himself, in some areas, to the free will of men, so that God himself allows the free will of men to frustrate his own desire, on some things - and it breaks his heart - just like our kids do in their free will.
You dear Calvinist brethren need to stop trying to "save" God from "embarrassing" himself because he allows us to thwart his will for our salvation. It's cringe-y to watch.

B) The view that because most mankind is lost and therefore God has somehow "failed" is an incredibly narrow view based on our temporal bias. The effect of the cross is that, ultimately, the millennial kingdom comes in, and reaches out into eternity, with a limitless number of sinless humans being born and begetting other sinless humans (1); with the serpent eternally destroyed in fire. So that, overall, but an infinitesimal fraction of mankind, relative to eternity, will have been lost. A resounding success in saving the world.

(1) It's only the children of the resurrection that don't marry, not the ones that go out alive into the kingdom from the tribulation, or the people which shall be created (Ps.102:18) - but that's a topic for another day.

 

[atpollard]

A) The law could not communicate righteousness (Gal.3:21). Did the law fail?
Or was it rather that the law was spiritual yet men were carnal so that the fault was in man that the law did not effect righteousness? As it is written:

• Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, ---> Why? Because the law itself was weak? No:
• in that it was weak through the flesh, ---> The instrument was weak.

Likewise, the failure is not attributable to God, to the sinful heart of man which rejects the gospel.
God purposed to bring the initial Exodus generation into the promised land, but that didn't happen save for 2 men.
Was the failure attributable to God, or men?

Please understand: God does, in his own power and will, choose to limit his himself, in some areas, to the free will of men, so that God himself allows the free will of men to frustrate his own desire, on some things - and it breaks his heart - just like our kids do in their free will.
You dear Calvinist brethren need to stop trying to "save" God from "embarrassing" himself because he allows us to thwart his will for our salvation. It's cringe-y to watch.

B) The view that because most mankind is lost and therefore God has somehow "failed" is an incredibly narrow view based on our temporal bias. The effect of the cross is that, ultimately, the millennial kingdom comes in, and reaches out into eternity, with a limitless number of sinless humans being born and begetting other sinless humans (1); with the serpent eternally destroyed in fire. So that, overall, but an infinitesimal fraction of mankind, relative to eternity, will have been lost. A resounding success in saving the world.

(1) It's only the children of the resurrection that don't marry, not the ones that go out alive into the kingdom from the tribulation, or the people which shall be created (Ps.102:18) - but that's a topic for another day.

That was an EPIC FAIL.

I am not asking for a Biblical proof of a doctrine. I am quite capable of providing a biblical defense of almost any doctrine and certainly the Wesleyan compatibility of the Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of men taught by the Church of God where I learned that such a thing as "Bible precepts" even existed.

You offered a simple, clear, unavoidable and universal definition of WORLD in John 3:16 to mean "all mankind without exception" and went so far as to claim that any other definition was impossible. The same word WORLD appears in the very next verse again referring to a collection of men (as opposed to the ground and sky). So applying YOUR DEFINITION we get:

[John 3:16-17 CSB] 16 "For God loved [all mankind without exception] in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send his Son into [all mankind without exception] to condemn [all mankind without exception], but to save [all mankind without exception] through him.

Did God save all mankind without exception through Jesus?
How is that not a problem given the above statements?
Did God fail in His stated goal to save all mankind without exception?

(and yet, "His people from every nation, tribe and tongue" both fits with the verses and agrees with empirical reality.)

[John 3:16-17 CSB] 16 "For God loved [His people from every nation, tribe and tongue] in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send his Son into [His people from every nation, tribe and tongue] to condemn [His people from every nation, tribe and tongue], but to save [His people from every nation, tribe and tongue] through him.

 

[George Antonios]

[John 3:16-17 CSB] 16 "For God loved [all mankind without exception] in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send his Son into [all mankind without exception] to condemn [all mankind without exception], but to save [all mankind without exception] through him.

Exactly.

Did God save all mankind without exception through Jesus?

Just answered in post #23, to which your only reply was "EPIC FAIL".

Well ok then. Moving on.

 

[atpollard]

Just answered in post #23, to which your only reply was "EPIC FAIL".

Well ok then. Moving on.

God says he is going to save the WORLD.
That really means that God is going to save everyone without exception.
Most people end up in Hell.

... and Calvinists get a rap for "twisting scripture to fit our theology".

 

[George Antonios]

God says he is going to save the WORLD.
That really means that God is going to save everyone without exception.
Most people end up in Hell.

... and Calvinists get a rap for "twisting scripture to fit our theology".

to save whosoever believeth in him and potentially the whole world if the whole world chooses to believe on him.

"twisting scripture to fit our theology" like you just did.

 

[George Antonios]

Most people end up in Hell.

You ignored point B.

 

[atpollard]

to save whosoever believeth in him and potentially the whole world if the whole world chooses to believe on him.

"twisting scripture to fit our theology" like you just did.

"... but to save the world through him." John 3:17

Ignoring those inconvenient adjacent verses, like always.

 

[atpollard]

You ignored point B.

Point B does not change the fact that God SAID one thing in John 3:17 and DID the opposite according to all those verses about "wide and narrow" and "many and few" ... if we apply YOUR irrefutable definition of WORLD to verse 17.

 

[Van]

God loved humankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Thus Christ's death did not save everyone, but did provide the means of salvation to everyone believing into Him.

To believe into Him means the person's faith was credited as righteousness by God and therefore God put them into Christ.

Everyone God puts into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Gospel of Christ.

 

[MB]

Why can it NOT be the world of people described in Revelation 5:9 (those who will believe from every nation, tribe and tongue) that God so loved in John 3:16 that he sent his son that they might not perish? Why MUST God love the reprobate that hate him and will continue to hate him even as they are dragged screaming and cursing into Hell resolute in their rebellion? Explain why it is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE that God might not "love" them enough to waste Christ's precious blood by pouring out the Bread and Wine of Communion into the mud in honor of those that refuse to take it (and never will)?

You claim that is is grammatically not possible for it to mean that, but I see no real proof of your claim.


It is. No Reformed Theologian would agree with you, only the Bible bending semi-Pelagians.

Here are the insults semi Pelagians.. You are incapable to have an honest debate with out insults, So Christian of you. Jn 3 :16 says God so loved the world. If this is true God even loves the sinners who won't come to Him. Believe me when I say you are not elect because there is no election for Gentiles.It wouldn't matter any way because we are all considered the same. The Calvinist tries to separate us again
MB

 

[MB]

Why can it NOT be the world of people described in Revelation 5:9 (those who will believe from every nation, tribe and tongue) that God so loved in John 3:16 that he sent his son that they might not perish? Why MUST God love the reprobate that hate him and will continue to hate him even as they are dragged screaming and cursing into Hell resolute in their rebellion? Explain why it is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE that God might not "love" them enough to waste Christ's precious blood by pouring out the Bread and Wine of Communion into the mud in honor of those that refuse to take it (and never will)?

You claim that is is grammatically not possible for it to mean that, but I see no real proof of your claim.


It is. No Reformed Theologian would agree with you, only the Bible bending semi-Pelagians.

Reformed theologins disagree with just about everyone even them selves/
MB

 

[George Antonios]

"... but to save the world through him." John 3:17

Ignoring those inconvenient adjacent verses, like always.

I'm not ignoring it. My view admits both.
He made provision for the salvation of the whole world, but only those of the world who believe avail themselves of that provision.
It's a provision and an intent. And yes, God's will, in the sense of desire, is frustrated by most men's refusal to accept the gospel - which is why he weeps!

God gave us kids to understand that.

 

[atpollard]

Here are the insults semi Pelagians.. You are incapable to have an honest debate with out insults, So Christian of you. Jn 3 :16 says God so loved the world. If this is true God even loves the sinners who won't come to Him. Believe me when I say you are not elect because there is no election for Gentiles.It wouldn't matter any way because we are all considered the same. The Calvinist tries to separate us again
MB

I think you missed a post:

In reverse order, the comment on 'Semi-Palagian bending' was intended as a teasing response to your baiting statement: "This is plain, straightforward, and non-controversial." (Of course the Calvinism/Arminianism aspect of John 3:16 is completely non-controversial)

But thank you for the loving example of “an eye for an eye” rather than “turning the other cheek”.

 

[atpollard]

Reformed theologins disagree with just about everyone even them selves/
MB

Ok, that was funny.

 

[atpollard]

I'm not ignoring it. My view admits both.
He made provision for the salvation of the whole world, but only those of the world who believe avail themselves of that provision.
It's a provision and an intent. And yes, God's will, in the sense of desire, is frustrated by most men's refusal to accept the gospel - which is why he weeps!

God gave us kids to understand that.

Just as I am guilty of adding “chosen world” to John 3:16, you are adding “provision to save” to John 3:17.


[Although technically, I do not dogmatically support that “world” in John 3:16 does not mean all of mankind, since the verse claims that God loved the world and saved “whoever believes” (it does not say that God saved the world). As I tried to explain, I believe that all three meanings were intended because God has one type of Love for those who believe, another type of love for all of mankind, and a third type of love for all of creation ... and all three benefitted from the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Some were “born again”, some were offered salvation, and creation will be restored.]

 

[George Antonios]

Just as I am guilty of adding “chosen world” to John 3:16, you are adding “provision to save” to John 3:17.


[Although technically, I do not dogmatically support that “world” in John 3:16 does not mean all of mankind, since the verse claims that God loved the world and saved “whoever believes” (it does not say that God saved the world). As I tried to explain, I believe that all three meanings were intended because God has one type of Love for those who believe, another type of love for all of mankind, and a third type of love for all of creation ... and all three benefitted from the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Some were “born again”, some were offered salvation, and creation will be restored.]

...

 

[atpollard]

...

I see your points.

 

[Brightfame52]

God loved humankind in this way, He gave His one of a kind Son so that everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Thus Christ's death did not save everyone, but did provide the means of salvation to everyone believing into Him.

To believe into Him means the person's faith was credited as righteousness by God and therefore God put them into Christ.

Everyone God puts into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Gospel of Christ.

Those Christ died for were saved by His death, what does Peter say to these believers 1 Pet 2:24

24 who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Now what do think stripes mean here ? And what do you believe healed is here ?