Sovereign in Salvation

Hi Whetstone;
It appears that you're not exactly truthful or rather you're not very knowledgeable of Original Greek.

"Pas" In Greek has one meaning it is "All" and it is defined as ("all inclusive"). The translators used whosoever for gramar purposes. Most likely most Bible translators are Anti Calvinistic. They're aware of the Calvinist deception of trying to change the meanings of words to make it fit there doctrines.
You cannot define a Greek word with an English dictionary.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

This truly is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on this forum.

(1) without the article each, every (pl. all); every kind of; all, full, absolute, greatest; (2) with the article entire , whole; all ( pa/j o` with ptc. everyone who ); (3) everyone, everything ( dia. panto,j always, continually, forever; kata. pa,nta in everything, in every respect)

Guess what ... your WRONG (as usual) pas has the article (if you know what that is) and has HO' ... thus literally is EVERYONE WHO.... 2nd grade Greek actually....

Most translators are ANTI CALVINISTIC? Wycliffe? LUTHER?

Arminians couldn't translate a Bible because they don't know Greek... Like you! Arminianist!

 

Wes.

Of course we have been Americanised and so we should but culture is a many splendid thing.

Strange to think the KJV is so popular over there! But many of the words we use have changed their meaning in my lifetime.
Why did God do that Wes, confuse our tongues so we could not understand each other?

johnp.

 

rc;
You know what you said makes you plumb full of it.

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
You're so wrong that it's pitiful. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Your so ignorant of the Greek it's laughable.
And your going for a doctorate
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

The translators of the KJV were Calvinists.

Dan

 

ILL,

You don't know Greek so stop with the ignorant statements. Do you think you can look a word up in something as simple as what you did and take it out of it's CONTEXT and know what it means?
Ask any Greek scholar and they will tell you the same. Words are put in tenses and phrases... They change meaning and importance depending on their construction. Pas with the article ho' after it means 'EVERY ONE WHO' I quoted Greek scholarly works NOT a Strong's quicky reference book. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

How can you have the arrogance of debating someone that knows Greek and you don't? Don't you think that's foolish? Why don't you play Chess with a two year old and watch him slobber all over the pieces as he puts them in his mouth. That's what your doing with auguring Greek . Slobber, slobber, slober...

 

It's a gift!

Silence allows tyranny to reign!

Jesus did say, "For God so loved the world." It is obvious, you are the one changing the meaning of the verse by limiting its meaning to "only those believing". Jesus did not say, "For God so loved only those believing" but rather "For God so loved the world". So we have a big discussion about the meaning of The world. Start with Genesis And God created the heavens AND THE EARTH. "World" and "earth" have throughout history been interchangeable terms relating to a specific spherical object created by God. So, "For God so loved the earth...", is the same as, "For God so loved the world..."
The only way they cannot mean the same if you do not believe that Jesus is God the Son! Jesus declared that HE speaks only what the Father gives him to speak so it is God's saying that HE loved the world.
And, throughout time, "Whosoever" has always meant any ONE individual out of ALL individuals, Unless there is a modifier that specifies something about those to which whosoever belongs. The modifier in verse 16 of John 3 is "the world". So whosoever in the world that believes in God's only begotten son.... is the correct rendering!

You, rc, cannot prove otherwise. No matter how many greek scholars you cite, there is an equal or greater number who disagree with you! For me, it does not matter, because the Holy Spirit confirms in me that I am believing the truth by believing in God the Son, who is Jesus, the Christ. And yes, I am a whosoever!

So Rc, when you grow up, we can continue this conversation!

When you grow up, rc, I'll allow you another guess!

 

Wes,
Your slobbering again...

First of all we are talking about PAS ho' which is describing the argued "whosever"... We are not talking about "the World" in the first phrase. But since you brought that up also....

Again since your slobbering all over yourself and don't know the rules... A king can't jump over everything and capture my King...it can only move 1 square... rule 1...

pas with the ho' means everyone WHO... rule 1

Rule 2: kosmos in phrase 1 DOES NOT modify pas ho' but THE OTHER WAY AROUND !!!

Pas ho' modifies the meaning of kosmos. Sorry, it's just the rules of Greek. A literal reading AGAIN...

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.

NOW ... with the modifying of kosmos with the rules of Greek. Pas ho' modifies kosmos, thus when a Greek said this verse it would be understood by a Greek this way...

for God did so love the EVERY ONE WHO IS BELIEVING, 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.

ANY Greek will tell you this. This is so ironic. The very verse you guys think is the champion of Arminianism is actually your weakest link. This verse is one of the most particular verses Jesus gave for election and atonement.

 

rc;
Of course you're such a schollar that you have to quote others and can't look it up at all. Poor rc
May Christ Shine His light On Us All;
Mike

 

Now your going to feel stupid....

I didn't quote anybody... this is my own work.

I didn't NEED to follow anybody why?

Because I know Greek !! And funny, those who know Greek say the EXACT same thing? Why ? Because they know Greek !! Everybody that knows math knows 1 plus 1 is 2 doesn't need to look up books when questioned with this formula. The reason why everybody that knows math that has the same answer says that answer because it is TRUE ! Those who don't know math can say whatever they want and say "All you people that "know" math all say the same thing... You just say what the old teachers before you say... that doesn't mean 1 plus 1 is true... I think it's 3 !! And I don't need to know math to tell me other wise !

Greek is Greek ILL. Take a class and stop slobbering over yourself.

 

rc;

Don't believe you.

Nope still don't believe you

Having majored in it I'd have to say you're wrong. We use a standardize formula.

Wrong again Original Greek is a different language. Of course you know that cause your this all knowledgeable theologin

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

In case you haven't noticed, I am not a champion of Arminianism, and I am not an enemy of Calvinism.

I am sold out to Christianity.

 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck.... guess what Wes....

You are an Arminian !!

ILL,

Greek is Greek....
In the context of the argument Koine was implied!!

"Having majored in it I'd have to say you're wrong. We use a standardize formula"

And Koine greek isn't. It's one of the most regulated, strict languages known to man. That's the whole point. You just can't make things up like you are doing. There are rules and you aren't playing by the "standardized formula"

for God did so love the EVERY ONE WHO IS BELIEVING, 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

1 plus 1 is two.....

 

John 3:16 is often utilized out of the context of Jesus’ didactic teaching to Nicodemas, and employed as a proof text for God’s saving love to the entire world.[1] Some Calvinists believe that God is not saving all men here, but does intend a general “saving” love to all men. Some attempt to force John 3:16 within a context of a “general love.” Neither the context, nor the grammar, or the specific use of the words “so” and “gave,” allow for a general love to all men.[2] As Hugh Latimer has stated, “God is not only a private Father, but a common Father unto the whole world, unto all the faithful, be they never so poor and miserable.”[3] As will be demonstrated, the world of the faithful, and they alone, have God as their Father.

First, the text reads, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”[4] The article, ga.r (gar, for) denotes the information previous in the conversation which Jesus is expounding to Nicodemas. The immediate context is taken from the Old Testament passage of the brass serpent in the wilderness for those who would look upon it.[5] The larger context is on regeneration and Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemas—how the Spirit, Son and Father accomplish redemption. The “for” is immediately connected with the objects of the last verse instrumentally; everyone who believers should not perish because God sent his son to those who believe. The “for” of the verse links the thought in the previous verse, 3:15, to verse 16. The “for” is transitive. It is also to be noted that John 3:16 recalls the promise of the prologue seen in 1:12-13 and prepares the reader of the Gospel to encounter God’s expanded realm of salvation, not only for the Jews, but also for the Samaritans and Gentiles in John 4:1-54.[6]

The author of this love is God. The grammar is literally, “so loved God…”[7] The word, “Ou[twj” (houtos) is the emphatically[8] used “so” of the verse.[9] It is not a general love, but an emphatic love[10], of which there is none higher than this.[11] The “so” stresses[12] the aorist tense of the verb “hvga,phsen.” “So” acts as an adverb in this instance, connected vitally as a preceding intensive particle to the verb “love”. As an adverb, it denotes the “degree of intensity” of the verb to be stated. As is often noted, the phrase as a whole (“For, God so loved the world”) is a clause attached to a subordinate result clause (“that He gave…”). This is important since it causes the phrase to stand on its own, except for the connection between the last verse and the word “for.” As with most constructions in the Greek language, the sentence could literally be ripped apart and the words themselves strewn upon the floor. But because word endings are the key to helping us understand the construction, even if we did jumble the words around, the meaning would still be the same. The meaning, then, is quite straight forward in the Greek – not only did God love the world, but He intensely loved the world which is emphatically seen in use of the often neglected adverb Ou[twj.

The particular use of the word “hvga,phsen” (love), is to love something in particular or to “delight in the object”.[13] The “love” spoken of here by the Saviour cannot be a lesser love than that which God loves his elect. The aorist active indicative of “agapao” is the word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love. It is used here as often in the writings of John (14:23; 17:23; 1 John 3:1; 4:10). It is used of God’s love for his elect (2 Thess. 2:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4).[14] If this love in John 3:16 is “so” great as to be towards the whole world, this would cause the love of God to the whole world to be greater than the love He has for His elect. But the Savior states, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.” (John 15:13) If this is true, then the love which is spoken of in John 3:16 is the greatest love.[15] Thus, if this is true, and no greater love can be exemplified than this love which causes one to lay one’s life down for his friends, then the “world,” of necessity, is universally saved since God “so loves” it. This is certainly not true. It is true, though, that the love which is stated here is the greatest love God ever had, but it is for His elect.[16]

Turretin rightly states:

The love treated in John 3:16 when it is said that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” cannot be universal towards each and every one, but special towards a few. (1) It treats of the supreme and immense love of God[17] (a greater than which is not and cannot be conceived) to those he gave his only begotten. This is evident both from the intensive (epitatike) particle houtos (which has great weight here) and from the thing itself. For no one can have a greater love than to lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13), so no greater love can be found than that by which God (when men were yet enemies) delivered his own Son to death for them. And as Abraham could not more evidently prove his piety to God than by offering up his son as a sacrifice, so God could not more illustriously demonstrate his love to men than by giving up his Son to them as a propitiatory victim (hilastiken). (2) The love by which God gave his Son draws after itself all other things necessary to salvation: “For he that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). But not upon each and every one, rather upon the elect alone, he bestows all things with Christ. (3) Therefore the end of that love which God intends is the salvation of those whom he pursues with such love; hence he adds, “For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:17). If therefore God sent Christ for that end (that through him the world might be saved) , he must either have failed of his end or the world must be necessarily saved in fact. However it is certain that not the whole world, but only the chosen out of the world are saved; therefore to them properly this love has reference. Nor can it be conceived if a universal love is here under­stood, how such and so great love (which is by far the cause of the greatest and most excellent good, viz., the mission of Christ) can consist with the hatred of innumerable persons whom he willed to pass by and ordain to damnation (to whom he never has revealed either his Son or willed to bestow faith, without which it is set forth in vain). Nor can it be conceived how this love of God can be so greatly commended here which yet remains void and inefficacious on account of the defect of subjective grace, which God has determined to deny.[18]

The object of the love is “to.n ko,smon” (ton cosmon, the world).[19] John Gill states that the Persic version translates the word “world” as “men”, which, in this case may be fitting though not necessary.[20] John Flavel rightly states, “The objects of this love, or the persons to whom the eternal Lord delivered Christ, and that is the [World.] This must respect the elect of God in the world, such as do, or shall actually believe, as it is exegetically expressed in the next words, “That whosoever believes in him should not perish.”[21] As Owen states, God of his free grace, has prepared a way to redeem and save his elect (John 3:16; Isaiah 53:6).[22] I believe it is difficult to translate the verse in any other fashion without entering into theological problems.[23]

The word “world” cannot be loosely translated as meaning every one for all time, including those who have already perished. No one would grant that it includes all men in hell, or those who had previously been in hell at the time of the crucifixion. But by not granting this, the scope of those for whom God “so loves” is already limited. I quote John Owen at length, “First…Now, this love we say to be that, greater than which there is none. Secondly, by the “world,” we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God's love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven. Thirdly, “i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn” “in order that every believer,” is to us, and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son, con­taining no distribution of the world beloved but a direction to the person whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the chiefest good. Fourthly, “Should not perish, but have life everlasting,” contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business; which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ. And this, in general, is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us sundry arguments, efficient each of them to evert the general ransom; which, that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will lay down and compare the several words and expression of this place, about whose interpreta­tion we digress, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense and embracing the other:­ The first difference in the interpretation of this place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, Concerning the intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.[24] As Owen again states, “It is the special love of God to his elect, as we affirm, and so, consequently, not any such thing as our adversaries suppose to be intended by it, - namely, a velleity or natural inclination to the good of all.”[25] It must be kept in mind that Owen did believe God gave good things to lost men, but it does not argue a natural disposition in Him to do so in this saving sense.

Turretin explains at length what the word “world” refers to. I quote him in brief here and in length in the footnote, “It is true of the elect alone that they are actually reconciled to God and that their sins will not be imputed unto them. Why then should “the world” not be taken universally for individu­als, but indefinitely for anyone (Jews as well as Gentiles, without distinction of nation, language and condition) that he may be said to have loved the human race inasmuch as he was unwilling to destroy it entirely, but decreed to save some certain person out of it; not only from one people as before, but from all indis­criminately although the effects of that love should not be extended to each individual, but only to some certain ones (viz., those chosen out of the world)! And nothing is more frequent in common conversation than to attribute to a community something with respect to some certain individual, not to all.”[26]

In dealing fairly with John we must look through his Gospel and letters on the use of the word “world.”[27] 26 times he uses the word to refer to the earth.[28] 3 times he uses the word to refer to Jews and Gentiles specifically.[29] 12 times he uses the word to refer to believers and unbelievers in the world, or all humanity.[30] 3 times he uses the word to refer to the world system in particular.[31] 31 times he uses the word to refer to the wicked, without including believers, which is his most common use.[32] And finally, he uses the word for the world of the elect 11 times.[33] Seeing the varied usage of the word, the context and thought of each passage is critical, or the meaning of the word would enter into absurdity. For instance, if we were to use the same logic that the Remonstrance or Arminians[34] use in their use of the word “world” in John 3:16 as “everyone for all time”, what says we cannot use that same word in 1 John 5:19, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.” This would make absolutely no sense. Or what of Revelation 12:9, “So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Is this all of humanity as they would purport in John 3:16? Why do they read it into John 3:16 without considering to the context of the “so” and the “gave”, including the previous verse and the latter verse?

Arthur W. Pink also helps us further consider the word “world” in its context. “But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, “World means world”. True, but we have shown that “the world” does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that “the world” is used in a general way. When the breth­ren of Christ said, “Shew Thyself to the world” (John 7:4), did they mean “shew Thyself to all mankind? When the Pharisees said, “Behold, the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19), did they mean that “all the human family” were flocking after Him? When the apostle wrote, “Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Rom. 1:8), did he mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child on the earth? When Rev. 13:3 informs us that “all the world wondered after the beast”, are we to understand that there will be no exceptions? What of the godly Jewish Remnant, who will be slain (Rev. 20:4) rather than sub­mit? These, and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term “the world” often has a relative rather than an absolute force.”[35] I do believe that the word is relative depending upon the context. In almost every instance it is used in the Bible it is relative. It almost always has connotations to specific groups of people.

Pink goes on to say, “in 2 Cor. 5:19 we read:

To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” What is meant by this is clearly defined in the words immediately following “not imputing their trespasses unto them”. Here again, “the world” cannot mean “the world of the ungodly for their trespasses are “imputed” to them, as the judg­ment of the Great White Throne will yet show. But 2 Cor. 5:19 plainly teaches there is a “world” which are “recon­ciled”, reconciled unto God, because their trespasses are not ' reckoned to their account, having been borne by their Substitute. Who then are they? Only one answer is fairly possible-the world of God's people! In like manner, the “world” in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God's people. “Must” we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God's love is mentioned limits it to His own people-search and see! The objects of God's love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ's love in John 13:1: “Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.