What in the "World" does that word mean?

It wasn't aimed at you in particular. I do appreciate your attitude on this thread. Thank you for your graciousness. I think it's gotten too hot for me here, though, so I'll bow out before I say something I'll regret later. God bless.

 

'The principal subject of John 3:16 is Christ as the Gift of God. The first clause tells us what moved God to “give” His only begotten Son, and that was His great “love;” the second clause informs us for whom God “gave” His Son, and that is for, “whosoever (or, better, ‘every one’) believeth;” while the last clause makes known why God “gave” His Son (His purpose), and that is, that everyone that believeth “should not perish but have everlasting life.” That “the world” in John 3:16 refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from “the world of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:5), is established, unequivocally established, by a comparison of the other passages which speak of God’s “love.” “God commendeth His love toward US”—the saints, Romans 5:8. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth”—every son, Hebrews 12:6. “We love Him, because He first loved US”—believers, I John 4:19. The wicked God “pities” (see Matthew 18:33). Unto the unthankful and evil God is “kind” (see Luke 6:35). The vessels of wrath He endures “with much long-suffering” (see Romans 9:22). But “His own” God “loves” and loves "to the end" or "to the uttermost" (John 13:1).'

A.W. Pink (slightly expanded). Full article here: “Kosmos” in John 3:16 – by AW Pink | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

Communication requires using terms commonly understood by both parties - that is fundemental. Even "born again" is using common language.

God loves all his creation because it is the works of his hands. But with regard to redemption he "hates all WORKERS of iniquity" and he "hated" Esau. The redemptive love of God is found only "in Christ" whereas all who are outside of Christ are under the "wrath" of God - Jn. 3:36

John, it is plain that we don't agree and won't agree. That's ok, I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I am glad to acknowledge they have every right to disagree with me. God bless.

 

I do appreciate your posts--even if I feel they are too long sometimes. And I thank you for your graciousness.

 

Another extract from Pink:

“Kosmos” is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.” Believers do not “hate” Christ, so that “the world” here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. “God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.” Here is another passage where “the world” cannot mean “you, me, and everybody,” for believers will not be “judged” by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view. is used of humanity minus believers:

“Kosmos” is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Rom. 11:12 etc. “Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness.” Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, “the world” cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

“Kosmos” is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; I Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of “the world” in each place. is used of believers only:
******************************************************************************************************
John 3:16 is obviously the text under discussion, so I will look for a moment at John 1:29. The Lord Jesus does not take away the sins of every person in the world, since He says of the Jewish leaders, "You will die in your sins" (John 8:24),
John 6:33 cannot mean that Jesus gives life to every person in the world because of John 6:53.
John 12:47 cannot mean that Christ came to save every person in the world since John 6:48 tells us that His own words will judge those that do not receive His words.
1 Corinthians 4:9 that the Apostles have been made a spectacle to every single person in the world, since most people in the world at that time did not see them.
2 Corinthians 5:19 cannot mean that every person in the world is reconciled to God or that He does not impute sin to anyone at all because it is plain that many people are not reconciled to Him, and those who are in that position will die in their sins (John 8:24 again).

 

Forgive me, but Pink impresses me not at all. He did not adorn is doctrine with his life like other Calvinists such as Spurgeon or John MacArthur. By the end of his life, no one was asking Pink to preach, and he wasn't even going to church anywhere. And near as I can tell he had almost no theological education.

 

Having read his biography, I'm aware of Pink's shortcomings, but I'm also aware that his works have been hugely valuable to thousands of Christians, including myself. However, I understand that playing the man and not the ball is a good way of side-stepping a discussion.

BTW, as brief as Pink's formal theological education was, it was more than either Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones.

 

Yes, but Spurgeon and Lloyd Jones were greatly used in the service of the Lord. Even Rolfe Barnard was a greatly use evangelist (just read his biography). What did Pink accomplish for the Lord other than writing books on Calvinism? If one is truly dedicated to the Lord, God will use him. If one is not dedicated to the Lord and longing to be used by Him, why should I pay attention to him?

 

I know how hard it is to separate a man from his prejudices, so I will only note that few men in the 20th Century were so gloriously used by God as Pink. That in his lifetime, many did not receive him, and that he was often despised and rejected by men only makes him more like his Saviour, although there were times when his preaching was highly effective under God, both in the USA and in Australia. But after his death he has been a blessing to many thousands and his books (originally articles in his magazine) remain in print almost 70 years after his death. To write them off as 'books on Calvinism' only proves that you have never read them.

However, that is beside the point. Would you care to comment on my post #125, or will you use your prejudice against Pink as a figleaf for your non-participation?

 

Since you insist.

 

These passages are irrelevant to the meaning in John 3. Since Pink did not really know Greek or linguistics, he is making a basic error here. Not including the cognate forms (verb kosmeo, adj. kosmikos, adv. kosmios, and another noun kosmios), BAGD has 3 whiole columns for the noun kosmos. That is a huge number of possible meanings. Simply saying, "Look, kosmos has a limited meaning in these other passages" proves not a thing about John 3. If that were the way a linguist did semantics, there are various other possible meanings for the word that could be given the word there.

Are you familiar with Exegetical Fallacies, by D. A. Carson? He calls this error "Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field," and discusses it on pp. 57-61.

To determine the given meaning of a polysemous word (one with multiple meanings), the exegete must interpret in context. Some authors (Eugene Nida, for example) believe that the context actually determines meaning, or in other words, that a given context can convey meaning to a word. I disagree with that--it's a radical view. However, it is basic linguistics to say the context must determine which meaning is meant of multiple possibilities. Pink did not do that.

Again, Pink has the same problem here. Simply by proving this meaning in Romans, Pink thinks he can transplant that meaning over into John 3, and that is simply wrong.

But then I have to say, Pink let his theological preunderstandings determine his exegesis. John 1:29, 3:16-17, 6:33, 12:47, and 2 Cor. 5:19 can be interpreted as everyone in the world quite easily if one does not accept a limited atonement. Pink has interpreted according to his theology, not according to exegesis. 1 Cor. 4:9 is a different problem, but it may easily be interpreted as referring to the "world system" meaning of kosmos rather than people per se.

You also are interpreting according to your theological preunderstandings. There are theologians who say that Christ does take away the sin of the lost. (I'm not saying I agree. The point here is not my own personal theology.)

I fail to see your point. V. 53 is an invitation to the lost Pharisees to accept his life.

Just as I said with Pink, these are all different contexts. You cannot determine the meaning of "world" in John 3 by how it is used elsewhere. The meaning of each usage must be in context, as all--ALL--linguists agree.

"Above all, to know what a word means we must consider its context. Meaning is then extracted from the passage in which the word is found. Hence it is not legitimate to say that the 'original' meaning of a word is its 'real' meaning, unless that meaning coincides with the usage of the word under consideration" (David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, p. 122).

 

Please share with me how Pink was so greatly used other than in making people Calvinists. Simply because his books sold well (not nearly as well as John R. Rice's) means nothing, or the author of the silly little book, The Prayer of Jabez, would be a great Christian.

Tell me of revivals that occurred because of Pink's writings. Tell me of souls saved. Tell me of Christians encouraged to walk with God.

 

Pink theology was very much in agreement with the scriptures. and was used by God to mature up some weak in their biblical understanding
One can profit a Calvinist, just as I have profited from some non cals!

 

This is very vague. Who in particular has been saved or caused to grow closer to Christ through Pink's writings? Is there a website?

Multiplied thousands were saved under Spurgeon, another Calvinist, and John MacArthur is doing a great work as a pastor, school founder, etc.

When a man was called a gunfighter in the old West, they used to say, "Show me his graveyards." Well, show me Pink's converts.

 

Pink was a Pastor of multiple churches in Kentucky alone. Surely one doesn't have to have "thousands" come to Christ under his teaching to be used by the Lord.

Just because his pastoral work was not high profile, doesn't mean he wasnt used by God.

"....Grow closer to Christ through Pink's writing's ".
I know multiple Christians who say his books have helped them grow in understanding of the Lord. Though, I myself prefer to read MacArthur...I mean Phil Johnson....MacArthur...whoever writes those books. Hahaha

*edit* I do however disagree with Pink on John 3:16


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

I'm definitely one! He's one of my favorites.

 

...unbelievable....

 

Pink was important in theology, as he started out as a strong Dispy, and changed to Covenant Theology, so understood both major viewpoints!