God SO LOVES the Entire Human Race

[ICHTHUS]

John 3:16-18

“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.”

Some would have us believe, that the Greek word, “kosmos”, which is rendered “world” in all English versions of the Bible, should take on a limited, special sense of the world. It is assumed, that, because there are instances in Scripture, where “kosmos” is used in the sense, where the entire world is not intended (and I will not deny that this is indeed true), that this warrants this limited use in our present text. Is this a valid argument? The present context will prove beyond any doubt, that this is not only not the case, but, if anyone would press this limited meaning here, to apply only to the “elect”, then it causes them problems.

Firstly, it might be shown, that there is not a single Greek lexicon that I know of, that says that “kosmos” here has a meaning that does not mean the “whole world” (that is, “everyone without exception).

J H Thayer

“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)

W Ardnt & F Gingrich

“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)

Edward Robinson

“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)

John Parkhurst

“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)

S T Bloomfield

“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)

G Kittle and G Friedrich

“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)

W E Vine

“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

In our immediate context, “kosmos” is used four times, once in verse 16, and three times in verse 17. If we were to limit its use in verse 16, to refer only to the “elect”, then we must carry on this use in the following verse also. Where we read:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”

The believer is said not to come into any “judgment”, or “condemnation”, as they have “passed from death into life”, which has already said to have taken place, when the sinner trusted in Jesus for their salvation.

Further, in verse 17 we read, that “the elect might be saved through Him” Here we have the Greek “sothe” (might be saved), which is in the subjunctive mood, which is used to denote “possibility”, in that it is not something “certain”. It is true, that as in verses 15 and 16, where the word apoletai (KJV “should not perish) is used, it is with the “hina” clause, which, though in the subjunctive mood, is yet in both cases “certain”, because in each case the negative “me” (me_apoletai) is used. This will then render the clause as “shall not perish”. However, in verse 17, even though “sothe” is used with “hina” (hina sothe), there is no negative particle used as in verse 15 and 16, which would require the clause to have the meaning of “possibility”, which is correctly rendered in English as “might be saved” Does this then mean, that the salvation of the “elect” is only a “possibility”? If we are to take the words to mean “shall be saved”, then we would expect Jesus to have said: “sothese”, as in Romans 10:9, “ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

We should note, that in verses 15 and 16, “believes”, is in the Greek, “pisteuno”, which is the present, continuance, tense, literally, “continues to believe”.

We can only conclude from these facts, that there is no Biblical justification for us to take “kosmos” the this passage, to mean anything other than “the sum total of the human race”, and NOT as the Calvinist would have us believe, because of their theological bias found in the heresy of “Limited Atonement”, that it only refers to the “elect”. Can any honest mind doubt that this great passage is the hope of mankind, for salvation through our Great Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ?

John Calvin, had this to say on this verse:

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Calvin’s own language is what is not used by any “Calvinist” who believes in “Limited Atonement”. “all men without distinction” is the language that a “Calvinist” would use, so as to distort what the Bible actually teaches, yet the “Calvinists” own “leader”, John Calvin, himself believed that Jesus Christ dies for THE WHOLE WORLD, that is, EVERY HUMAN BEING!

Robert Dabney, who was a Calvinist, has this to say on the use of “kosmos” here:

“In Jno.iii.16, make ‘the world’ which Christ loved, to mean ‘the elect world’, and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish…since Christ made expiation for every man” (Systematic Theology, p.525)

 

[robert pate]

John 3:16-18

“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.”

Some would have us believe, that the Greek word, “kosmos”, which is rendered “world” in all English versions of the Bible, should take on a limited, special sense of the world. It is assumed, that, because there are instances in Scripture, where “kosmos” is used in the sense, where the entire world is not intended (and I will not deny that this is indeed true), that this warrants this limited use in our present text. Is this a valid argument? The present context will prove beyond any doubt, that this is not only not the case, but, if anyone would press this limited meaning here, to apply only to the “elect”, then it causes them problems.

Firstly, it might be shown, that there is not a single Greek lexicon that I know of, that says that “kosmos” here has a meaning that does not mean the “whole world” (that is, “everyone without exception).

J H Thayer

“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)

W Ardnt & F Gingrich

“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)

Edward Robinson

“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)

John Parkhurst

“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)

S T Bloomfield

“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)

G Kittle and G Friedrich

“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)

W E Vine

“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

In our immediate context, “kosmos” is used four times, once in verse 16, and three times in verse 17. If we were to limit its use in verse 16, to refer only to the “elect”, then we must carry on this use in the following verse also. Where we read:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”

The believer is said not to come into any “judgment”, or “condemnation”, as they have “passed from death into life”, which has already said to have taken place, when the sinner trusted in Jesus for their salvation.

Further, in verse 17 we read, that “the elect might be saved through Him” Here we have the Greek “sothe” (might be saved), which is in the subjunctive mood, which is used to denote “possibility”, in that it is not something “certain”. It is true, that as in verses 15 and 16, where the word apoletai (KJV “should not perish) is used, it is with the “hina” clause, which, though in the subjunctive mood, is yet in both cases “certain”, because in each case the negative “me” (me_apoletai) is used. This will then render the clause as “shall not perish”. However, in verse 17, even though “sothe” is used with “hina” (hina sothe), there is no negative particle used as in verse 15 and 16, which would require the clause to have the meaning of “possibility”, which is correctly rendered in English as “might be saved” Does this then mean, that the salvation of the “elect” is only a “possibility”? If we are to take the words to mean “shall be saved”, then we would expect Jesus to have said: “sothese”, as in Romans 10:9, “ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

We should note, that in verses 15 and 16, “believes”, is in the Greek, “pisteuno”, which is the present, continuance, tense, literally, “continues to believe”.

We can only conclude from these facts, that there is no Biblical justification for us to take “kosmos” the this passage, to mean anything other than “the sum total of the human race”, and NOT as the Calvinist would have us believe, because of their theological bias found in the heresy of “Limited Atonement”, that it only refers to the “elect”. Can any honest mind doubt that this great passage is the hope of mankind, for salvation through our Great Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ?

John Calvin, had this to say on this verse:

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Calvin’s own language is what is not used by any “Calvinist” who believes in “Limited Atonement”. “all men without distinction” is the language that a “Calvinist” would use, so as to distort what the Bible actually teaches, yet the “Calvinists” own “leader”, John Calvin, himself believed that Jesus Christ dies for THE WHOLE WORLD, that is, EVERY HUMAN BEING!

Robert Dabney, who was a Calvinist, has this to say on the use of “kosmos” here:

“In Jno.iii.16, make ‘the world’ which Christ loved, to mean ‘the elect world’, and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish…since Christ made expiation for every man” (Systematic Theology, p.525)

To say that Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world is blasphemy against the Gospel, Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[ICHTHUS]

To say that Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world is blasphemy against the Gospel, Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

rightly said! it is an insult to the Lord and His Death for the entire human race. Even John Calvin saw the grave error of the L in TULIP!

 

[Comingfrom]

John 3:16-18

“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.”

Some would have us believe, that the Greek word, “kosmos”, which is rendered “world” in all English versions of the Bible, should take on a limited, special sense of the world. It is assumed, that, because there are instances in Scripture, where “kosmos” is used in the sense, where the entire world is not intended (and I will not deny that this is indeed true), that this warrants this limited use in our present text. Is this a valid argument? The present context will prove beyond any doubt, that this is not only not the case, but, if anyone would press this limited meaning here, to apply only to the “elect”, then it causes them problems.

Firstly, it might be shown, that there is not a single Greek lexicon that I know of, that says that “kosmos” here has a meaning that does not mean the “whole world” (that is, “everyone without exception).

J H Thayer

“the inhabitants of the earth, the human race” (Lexicon, p.357)

W Ardnt & F Gingrich

“the world as mankind…of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love” (Lexicon, p.447)

Edward Robinson

“the world for the inhabitants of the earth, men mankind” (Lexicon, p.440)

John Parkhurst

“The world, i.e. the whole race of mankind, both believers and unbelievers, both good and bad” (Lexicon, p.336)

S T Bloomfield

“the world for its inhabitants, mankind” (Greek Lexicon, p. 227)

G Kittle and G Friedrich

“The cosmos is the universe (Jn.3:16-17, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Vol. Ed., p. 464)

W E Vine

“the human race, mankind” (Expository Dictionary, p. 685)

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

In our immediate context, “kosmos” is used four times, once in verse 16, and three times in verse 17. If we were to limit its use in verse 16, to refer only to the “elect”, then we must carry on this use in the following verse also. Where we read:

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”

The believer is said not to come into any “judgment”, or “condemnation”, as they have “passed from death into life”, which has already said to have taken place, when the sinner trusted in Jesus for their salvation.

Further, in verse 17 we read, that “the elect might be saved through Him” Here we have the Greek “sothe” (might be saved), which is in the subjunctive mood, which is used to denote “possibility”, in that it is not something “certain”. It is true, that as in verses 15 and 16, where the word apoletai (KJV “should not perish) is used, it is with the “hina” clause, which, though in the subjunctive mood, is yet in both cases “certain”, because in each case the negative “me” (me_apoletai) is used. This will then render the clause as “shall not perish”. However, in verse 17, even though “sothe” is used with “hina” (hina sothe), there is no negative particle used as in verse 15 and 16, which would require the clause to have the meaning of “possibility”, which is correctly rendered in English as “might be saved” Does this then mean, that the salvation of the “elect” is only a “possibility”? If we are to take the words to mean “shall be saved”, then we would expect Jesus to have said: “sothese”, as in Romans 10:9, “ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

We should note, that in verses 15 and 16, “believes”, is in the Greek, “pisteuno”, which is the present, continuance, tense, literally, “continues to believe”.

We can only conclude from these facts, that there is no Biblical justification for us to take “kosmos” the this passage, to mean anything other than “the sum total of the human race”, and NOT as the Calvinist would have us believe, because of their theological bias found in the heresy of “Limited Atonement”, that it only refers to the “elect”. Can any honest mind doubt that this great passage is the hope of mankind, for salvation through our Great Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ?

John Calvin, had this to say on this verse:

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Calvin’s own language is what is not used by any “Calvinist” who believes in “Limited Atonement”. “all men without distinction” is the language that a “Calvinist” would use, so as to distort what the Bible actually teaches, yet the “Calvinists” own “leader”, John Calvin, himself believed that Jesus Christ dies for THE WHOLE WORLD, that is, EVERY HUMAN BEING!

Robert Dabney, who was a Calvinist, has this to say on the use of “kosmos” here:

“In Jno.iii.16, make ‘the world’ which Christ loved, to mean ‘the elect world’, and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish…since Christ made expiation for every man” (Systematic Theology, p.525)

Whose fan is in His hand,
and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner;
but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 3:12

Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest.
Matthew 9:38

 

[Arial]

“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.”

Some would have us believe, that the Greek word, “kosmos”, which is rendered “world” in all English versions of the Bible, should take on a limited, special sense of the world. It is assumed, that, because there are instances in Scripture, where “kosmos” is used in the sense, where the entire world is not intended (and I will not deny that this is indeed true), that this warrants this limited use in our present text.

You begin your post with to false assumptions, which of course makes the rest of what you say, perhaps interesting, and persuasive if not looked at with an objective eye, but nevertheless invalid.

First you imply that it is common for those who are Calvinist to interpret "world" in John 3:16 to mean the elect. I don't, and I have not anyone who does, though there are no doubt some if they were asked the question, who would not know how to answer and so just say what comes to mind without thinking about it. There are probably many who don't think about it at all and have never been asked the question. Second you make the asserting that since Calvinism recognizes that sometimes "world" is used where every person in the world is not intended, that they always say that it is never intended.

Are we to assume that all of the above lexicons are wrong in the meanings that they give for “kosmos”? There is no doubt to the honest mind, that the use of “kosmos” here can only mean “the whole human race”. To make it mean something less, is a distortion of the facts!

I posit that "world" in this instance does mean the whole world. The created world and all that is in it, and especially mankind, as what Jesus did was done for mankind. It neither refers to the "elect" or every individual. It refers to the world that God created, which in every aspect, suffers from the fall of man. Romans 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly awaits waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For creation itself was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will also be delivered from bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

And we see that God is working towards the restoration of all things in Rev 21:1; 2 Peter 12-13. There is no legitimate reason to take "world" in John 3:16 to mean "the whole human race", although only the redeemed will populate the new heaven and the new earth.

“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved”

Let is substitute the word “world” in each of these cases with “elect”, and see how it reads.

“For God did not send His Son into the elect to condemn the elect, but that the elect through Him might be saved”

Since, as far as I know, no one is substituting "elect" for "world" what you put forth is a strawman.

If, as it is argued by some, that Christ only came to save the “elect”, then why would any mention ever be made about Him coming to “condemn”, or “judge” the “elect”? These words have no meaning at all, if they are meant to be for the “elect” only. There would not be any reference made to any judgement or condemnation of the “elect”, as this is something that is not at all even a possibility. John 5: 24 says:

This too falls apart because of your beginning false assertion.

Further, in verse 17 we read, that “the elect might be saved through Him” Here we have the Greek “sothe” (might be saved), which is in the subjunctive mood, which is used to denote “possibility”, in that it is not something “certain”. It is true, that as in verses 15 and 16, where the word apoletai (KJV “should not perish) is used, it is with the “hina” clause, which, though in the subjunctive mood, is yet in both cases “certain”, because in each case the negative “me” (me_apoletai) is used. This will then render the clause as “shall not perish”. However, in verse 17, even though “sothe” is used with “hina” (hina sothe), there is no negative particle used as in verse 15 and 16, which would require the clause to have the meaning of “possibility”, which is correctly rendered in English as “might be saved” Does this then mean, that the salvation of the “elect” is only a “possibility”? If we are to take the words to mean “shall be saved”, then we would expect Jesus to have said: “sothese”, as in Romans 10:9, “ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Here we have a case of extended effort to prove a preconceived belief against election, by finding ways to do so, but that will not hold up under the scrutiny of logic, but only under the microscope of grammar. We know that the accurate rendering is "shall not perish" because of what else is said about it in the Bible, but in particular by what is said following verse 17. 18. He who believes in Him is not condemned. The salvation of the elect is certain. But here you have again made as assertion that is not valid. That being, that Calvinist say world in verse 17 means the elect.

We can only conclude from these facts, that there is no Biblical justification for us to take “kosmos” the this passage, to mean anything other than “the sum total of the human race”, and NOT as the Calvinist would have us believe, because of their theological bias found in the heresy of “Limited Atonement”, that it only refers to the “elect”. Can any honest mind doubt that this great passage is the hope of mankind, for salvation through our Great Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ?

You have reached a conclusion from a false premise. Calvinists do not say every time "world" is used it refers to the elect only.

“That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

Calvin’s own language is what is not used by any “Calvinist” who believes in “Limited Atonement”. “all men without distinction” is the language that a “Calvinist” would use, so as to distort what the Bible actually teaches, yet the “Calvinists” own “leader”, John Calvin, himself believed that Jesus Christ dies for THE WHOLE WORLD, that is, EVERY HUMAN BEING!

Note Calvins use of "invite". And what I have highlighted above---which is a generalization that you cannot possibly make. You lay your opinion of what they say onto them----and not only that, but all of them. You also fail to understand what Calvin is saying. He is saying that because salvation through faith in Christ is made known to all the world, rather than only the elect, no one has any excuse.

“In Jno.iii.16, make ‘the world’ which Christ loved, to mean ‘the elect world’, and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe, and perish…since Christ made expiation for every man” (Systematic Theology, p.525)

It is difficult to know what Dabney is saying without the rest of what he says to go with it.

 

[Arial]

rightly said! it is an insult to the Lord and His Death for the entire human race. Even John Calvin saw the grave error of the L in TULIP!

To say that Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world is blasphemy against the Gospel, Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit

To say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every person of all time, with His very life and shed blood, and then billions of people who don't believe have to pay again because He didn't actually pay for them, is the abomination. Yet another who does not know what it means that Jesus atoned for sin, who does not know what atonement means? Was it an actual atonement? Or a moral atonement? Or an atonement by example? Or a symbolic atonement? What was the atonement and what was it for, and what did it actually DO?

 

[ICHTHUS]

You begin your post with to false assumptions, which of course makes the rest of what you say, perhaps interesting, and persuasive if not looked at with an objective eye, but nevertheless invalid.

First you imply that it is common for those who are Calvinist to interpret "world" in John 3:16 to mean the elect. I don't, and I have not anyone who does, though there are no doubt some if they were asked the question, who would not know how to answer and so just say what comes to mind without thinking about it. There are probably many who don't think about it at all and have never been asked the question. Second you make the asserting that since Calvinism recognizes that sometimes "world" is used where every person in the world is not intended, that they always say that it is never intended.

I posit that "world" in this instance does mean the whole world. The created world and all that is in it, and especially mankind, as what Jesus did was done for mankind. It neither refers to the "elect" or every individual. It refers to the world that God created, which in every aspect, suffers from the fall of man. Romans 8:19-22 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly awaits waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For creation itself was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will also be delivered from bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

And we see that God is working towards the restoration of all things in Rev 21:1; 2 Peter 12-13. There is no legitimate reason to take "world" in John 3:16 to mean "the whole human race", although only the redeemed will populate the new heaven and the new earth.

Since, as far as I know, no one is substituting "elect" for "world" what you put forth is a strawman.

This too falls apart because of your beginning false assertion.

Here we have a case of extended effort to prove a preconceived belief against election, by finding ways to do so, but that will not hold up under the scrutiny of logic, but only under the microscope of grammar. We know that the accurate rendering is "shall not perish" because of what else is said about it in the Bible, but in particular by what is said following verse 17. 18. He who believes in Him is not condemned. The salvation of the elect is certain. But here you have again made as assertion that is not valid. That being, that Calvinist say world in verse 17 means the elect.

You have reached a conclusion from a false premise. Calvinists do not say every time "world" is used it refers to the elect only.

Note Calvins use of "invite". And what I have highlighted above---which is a generalization that you cannot possibly make. You lay your opinion of what they say onto them----and not only that, but all of them. You also fail to understand what Calvin is saying. He is saying that because salvation through faith in Christ is made known to all the world, rather than only the elect, no one has any excuse.

It is difficult to know what Dabney is saying without the rest of what he says to go with it.

in all that you have said, you have not been able to refute what I have said in the OP! You are looking at salvation as a "Calvinist", who are completely in error on this Doctrine! There is no other way to understand John 3:16, than "God so loves the entire human race", which includes Judas, for whom Jesus died, as is clear from Luke 22, and the Lord's Supper being given also to Judas, and he too was told, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for YOU". Even the reformed theologians, Matthew Henry and John Gill, both admit that Judas actually too the Lord's Supper. This in itself destroys the TULI in TULIP!

Jesus Christ Shed His Blood for Judas

"And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks...

whitehorseforums.com

 

[ICHTHUS]

To say that Jesus atoned for the sins of every person of all time, with His very life and shed blood, and then billions of people who don't believe have to pay again because He didn't actually pay for them, is the abomination. Yet another who does not know what it means that Jesus atoned for sin, who does not know what atonement means? Was it an actual atonement? Or a moral atonement? Or an atonement by example? Or a symbolic atonement? What was the atonement and what was it for, and what did it actually DO?

If, as Calvinists teach, that saving faith is a "gift" from God, and this is only given to the "elect". Then this would make what Jesus says in John 3:15-18, where He says that theose who don't believe will be damned, to be error. If these who are unbelievers are not given this saving faith, as they are not "elect", then HOW can God Justly condemn to eternal punishment, those who don't believe, becuse they CANNOT! This makes God to be UNJUST.

Calvinism on salvation is AGAINST the Teachings of the Holy Bible!

 

[7thMoon]

Strong's Number: 2885	Browse Lexicon​
Original Word Word Origin kosmeo from (2889) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Kosmeo 3:867,459 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech kos-meh'-o Verb
Definition
to put in order, arrange, make ready, prepare to ornament, adore metaph. to embellish with honour, gain honour

What does kosmeo mean then, since it is the verb for kosmos? I suspect it means to make space for someone or something.

And so what did Jesus mean when he said his kingdom is not of this world?

 

[7thMoon]

κοσμ-έω,
A.order, arrange, esp. set an army in array, marshal it, Il.14.379; “κοσμῆσαι ἵππους τε καὶ ἀνέρας” 2.554:—Pass., “ἐπεὶ κόσμηθεν ἅμ᾽ ἡγεμόνεσσιν ἕκαστοι” 3.1; πένταχα κοσμηθέντες marshalled in five bodies, 12.87; of a population, “διὰ τρίχα κοσμηθέντες” 2.655; once in Od., of hunters, “διὰ δὲ τρίχα κοσμηθέντες” 9.157:—Med., κοσμησάμενος πολιήτας having arranged his men, Il.2.806; so after Homer, κ. στρατόν (v.l. for κοιμήσων) E.Rh.662; “τάξεις κεκοσμημέναι” X.Cyr.2.1.26, cf. Pl.Phdr.247a; “ἐπὶ τάξις πλεῦνας ἐκεκοσμέατο” Hdt.9.31.
2. generally, arrange, prepare, “δόρπον ἐκόσμει” Od. 7.13; “κ. ἀοιδήν η” Bacch.59; “ἔργα” Hes.Op.306; “στέφανον” E.Hipp.74; “τράπεζαν” X.Cyr.8.2.6; “εἰς τάφον λέβητα” S.El.1401:—Pass., “δεῖπνον κεκόσμηται” Pi.N.1.22; δεῖ οὕτω κοσμηθῆναι ὅκως . . Democr.266; τὸ κοσμηθὲν αἷμα, = τὸνοἰκεῖον κόσμον κτησάμενον, Gal.5.551.
II. order, rule, “τὴν πόλιν κ. καλῶς τε καὶ εὖ” Hdt.1.59, cf. S.Aj.1103; “Σπάρτην ἔλαχες, κείνην κόσμει” E.Fr.723 (anap.); κ. ἐμαυτόν restrain myself, Id.Hyps.Fr.34(60).46; “τὰ ἄλλα ἐκεκοσμέατό οἱ” Hdt.1.100; “τόν γε νοῦν κοσμοῦντα πάντα κοσμεῖν” Pl.Phd.97 c:—Pass., τὰ κοσμούμενα orderly institutions, S.Ant.677: pf.part., of persons, orderly, “ταπεινὸς καὶ κεκοσμημένος” Pl.Lg.716a; “τεταγμένον τε καὶ κ. πρᾶγμα” Id.Grg. 504 a.
2. in Crete, hold office of “κόσμος” 111, “οἱ κεκοσμηκότες” Arist. Pol.1272a35, cf. Plb.22.15.1; Cret. κοσμίω Leg.Gort.1.51, etc.; also κορμίω (q.v.).
III. adorn, equip, dress, esp. of women, h.Hom. 6.11, Hes.Op.72; “κοσμῆσαί τινα πανοπλίῃ” Hdt.4.180; “τριπόδεσσι κ. δόμον” Pi.I.1.19; “τινὰ πλούτῳ ὑπερβάλλοντι” Hdn.3.10.6: c. dupl. acc., “πρίν σε νυμφικὸν ἰστέφανον κοσμήσαμεν” JRS17.51 (Phrygia, iv A. D.):—freq. in Med., κοσμέεσθαι τὰς κεφαλάς to adorn their heads, Hdt.7.209; “κοσμεῖσθαι σῶμα ὅπλοις” E.Ph.1359; ἐν φοινικίσι κοσμησάμενοι having decked themselves, Pl.Com.208:—Pass., “χρυσῷ κοσμηθεῖσα” h.Ven.65; “παῖσα δ᾽ Ἄρῃ κεκόσμηται στέγα” Alc.15.1; “ἵπποι κεκοσμημένοι ὡς κάλλιστα” Hdt.7.40; “κεκ. ἐσθῆτι ποικίλῃ καὶ χρυσοῖσι στεφάνοις” Pl.Ion535 d, cf. S.Ph.1064, Th.6.41, etc.
2. metaph., adorn, embellish, “λόγους” E.Med.576; “λόγους ῥήμασί τε καὶ ὀνόμασι κεκοσμημένους” Pl.Ap.17 c; “τραγικὸν λῆρον” Ar.Ra.1005; κ. ἔργον ἄριστον ib.1027; “τὸ λογικὸν ἔχεις ἐξαίρετον, τοῦτο κόσμει” Arr.Epict.3.1.26; “λόγον εὐρυθμίαις” Isoc.5.27; “αὑτὸν λόγοις” Pl.La.196 b, cf. 197 c; “ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κ.” Th.1.21; τὸν . . τὴν ἐκείνων ἀρετὴν κοσμήσοντα (in speaking) D.18.287:—Pass., “ἦθος σεμνότητι -μημένον” Phld.Acad.Ind. p.52 M.
3. honour, λουτροῖς σ᾽ ἐκόσμης' S.El.1139; “κ. τάφον” Id.Ant. 396; “νέκυν” E.Tr.1147; “κ. καὶ τιμᾶν” X.Cyr.1.3.3; of persons, adorn, be an honour to, “πατρίδα” Thgn.947; “νᾶσον εὐκλέα” Pi.N.6.46; “Σαλαμῖνα κ. πατρίδα” E.Fr.530.3; [“τὴν πόλιν] αἱ τῶνδε ἀρεταὶ ἐκόσμησαν” Th.2.42.
4. bury, JHS25.172, al. (Isauria).
IV. Pass., to be assigned, ascribed to, “ἐς τὸν Αἰγύπτιον νομὸν αὗται [αἱ πόλεις] ἐκεκοσμέατο” Hdt.3.91; “ἐς Πέρσας κεκοσμέαται” Id.6.41; esp. of philosophic schools, “κατὰ τὴν Ἀκαδημίαν κοσμεῖσθαι” S.E.P.1.231; “οἱ κατὰ διαφόρους αἱρέσεις κοσμούμενοι” Id.M.11.77.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

 

[7thMoon]

κόσμος , ὁ,
A.order, κατὰ κόσμον in order, duly, “εὖ κατὰ κ.” Il.10.472, al.; οὐ κατὰ κ. shamefully, Od.8.179; “μὰψ ἀτὰρ οὐ κατὰ κ.” Il. 2.214: freq. in dat., κόσμῳ καθίζειν to sit in order, Od.13.77, cf. Hdt.8.67; “οὐ κ. . . ἐλευσόμεθα” Il.12.225; “κ. θεῖναι τὰ πάντα” Hdt.2.52, cf. 7.36, etc.; “διάθες τάδε κ.” Ar.Av.1331; κ. φέρειν bear becomingly, Pi.P.3.82; “δέξασθαί τινα κ.” A.Ag.521; “σὺν κόσμῳ” Hdt.8.86, Arist.Mu. 398b23; “ἐν κόσμῳ” Hp.Mul.1.3, Pl.Smp.223b; κόσμῳ οὐδενὶ κοσμηθέντες in no sort of order, Hdt.9.59; φεύγειν, ἀπιέναι οὐδενὶ κ., Id.3.13, 8.60.γ́, etc.; “ἀτάκτως καὶ οὐδενὶ κ.” Th.3.108, cf. A.Pers.400; οὐκέτι τὸν αὐτὸν κ. no longer in the same order, Hdt.9.66; οὐδένα κ. ib.65, 69; “ἦν δ᾽ οὐδεὶς κ. τῶν ποιουμένων” Th.3.77: generally, of things, natural order, “γίνεται τῶν τεταρταίων ἡ κατάστασις ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κ.” Hp. Prog.20.
2. good order, good behaviour, = κοσμιότης Phld.Mus. p.43 K.; discipline, D.18.216; “οὐ κ., ἀλλ᾽ ἀκοσμία” S.Fr.846.
3. form, fashion, “῞ιππου κόσμον ἄεισον δουρατέου” Od.8.492; “κ. ἐπέων ἀπατηλός” Parm.8.52; ἐξηγεομένων . . τὸν κ. αὐτοῦ the fashion of it, Hdt.3.22; κ. τόνδε . . ὁ καταστησάμενος who established this order or from, Id.1.99.
4. of states, order, government, “μεταστῆσαι τὸν κ.” Th. 4.76, cf. 8.48, 67; “μένειν ἐν τῷ ὀλιγαρχικῷ κ.” 8.72, etc.; esp. of the Spartan constitution, Hdt.1.65, Clearch.3: pl., “πόλεων κόσμοι” Pl.Prt. 322c.
II. ornament, decoration, esp. of women, Il.14.187, Hes.Op. 76, Hdt.5.92.“ή; γυναικεῖος κ.” Pl.R.373c, etc.; of a horse, Il.4.145; of men, Hdt.3.123, A.Th.397, etc.; γλαυκόχροα κόσμον ἐλαίας, of an olive-wreath, Pi.O.3.13, cf. 8.83, P.2.10, etc.; “κ. κυνῶν” X.Cyn.6.1; “κ. καὶ ἔπιπλα” Lys.12.19; κ. ἀργυροῦς a service of plate, Ath.6.231b; “ἱερὸς κ.” OGI90.40 (Rosetta, ii B. C.): pl., ornaments, A.Ag.1271; “οἱ περὶ τὸ σῶμα κ.” Isoc.2.32: metaph., of ornaments of speech, such as epithets, Id.9.9 (pl.), Arist.Rh.1408a14, Po.1457b2, 1458a33; ἁδυμελῆ κ. κελαδεῖν to sing sweet songs of praise, Pi.O.11 (10).13 (s.v.l.).
2. metaph., honour, credit, Id.N.2.8, I.6(5).69; κόσμον φέρει τινί it does one credit, Hdt.8.60, 142; “γύναι, γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει” S.Aj.293; “κ. τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐμοί” Ar.Nu.914; “οἷς κόσμος [ἐστὶ] καλῶς τοῦτο δρᾶν” Th.1.5; “ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ τιμῇ εἶναί τινι” D.60.36; of persons, “σὺ ἔμοιγε μέγιστος κ. ἔσει” X.Cyr.6.4.3; “ἡ μεγαλοψυχία οἷον κ. τις τῶν ἀρετῶν” Arist.EN 1124a1.
III. ruler, regulator, title of chief magistrate in Crete, SIG712.57, etc.; collectively, body of κόσμοι, ib.524.1; τοῦ κ. τοῖς πλίασι ib.527.74: also freq. in pl., ib.528.1, al., Arist.Pol.1272a6, Str.10.4.18, 22; cf. κόρμος.
IV. Philos., world-order, universe, first in Pythag., acc.to Placit.2.1.1, D.L.8.48 (cf. [Philol.]21), or Parm., acc. to Thphr. ap. D.L.l.c.; “κόσμον τόνδε οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ” Heraclit.30; “ὁ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν κ.” X.Mem.1.1.11: freq. in Pl., Grg.508a, Ti.27a, al.; “ἡ τοῦ ὅλου σύστασίς ἐστι κ. καὶ οὐρανός” Arist.Cael.280a21, cf. Epicur.Ep. 2p.37U., Chrysipp.Stoic.2.168, etc.; “ὁ κ. ζῷον ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν” Posidon. ap. D.L.7.139, cf. Pl.Ti.30b: sts. of the firmament, “γῆς ἁπάσης τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ κόσμῳ κειμένης” Isoc.4.179; “ὁ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὅλος κ.” Arist. Mete.339a20; μετελθεῖν εἰς τὸν ἀέναον κ., of death, OGI56.48 (Canopus, iii B. C.); but also, of earth, as opp. heaven, “ὁ ἐπιχθόνιος κ.” Herm. ap. Stob.1.49.44; or as opp. the underworld, “ὁ ἄνω κ.” Iamb.VP27.123; of any region of the universe, “ὁ μετάρσιος κ.” Herm. ap. Stob.1.49.44; of the sphere whose centre is the earth's centre and radius the straight line joining earth and sun, Archim.Aren.4; of the sphere containing the fixed stars, Pl.Epin.987b: in pl., worlds, coexistent or successive, Anaximand. et alii ap.Placit.2.1.3, cf. Epicur.l.c.; also, of stars, “Νὺξ μεγάλων κ. κτεάτειρα” A.Ag.356 (anap.), cf. Heraclid.et Pythagorei ap.Placit.2.13.15 (= Orph.Fr.22); οἱ ἑπτὰ κ. the Seven planets, Corp.Herm.11.7.
2. metaph., microcosm, “ἄνθρωπος μικρὸς κ.” Democr. 34; “ἄνθρωπος βραχὺς κ.” Ph.2.155; of living beings in general, “τὸ ζῷον οἷον μικρόν τινα κ. εἶναί φασιν ἄνδρες παλαιοί” Gal.UP3.10.
3. in later Gr., = οἰκουμένη, the known or inhabited world, OGI458.40 (9 B.C.), Ep.Rom.1.8, etc.; ὁ τοῦ παντὸς κ. κύριος, of Nero, SIG814.31, cf. IGRom.4.982 (Samos); “ἐὰν τὸν κ. ὅλον κερδήσῃ” Ev.Matt.16.26.
4. men in general, “φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κ.” Ev.Jo.7.4, cf. 12.19; esp. of the world as estranged from God by sin, ib.16.20, 17.9, al., 1 Ep.Cor. 1.21, etc.
5. οὗτος ὁ κ. this present world, i.e. earth, opp. heaven, Ev.Jo.13.1; regarded as the kingdom of evil, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κ. τούτου ib.12.31.
V. Pythag.name for six, Theol.Ar.37; for ten, ib.59.

The consensus is a mess, and certainly not final. Area is a better definition and abstract enough to represent all examples.

 

[Arial]

If, as Calvinists teach, that saving faith is a "gift" from God, and this is only given to the "elect". Then this would make what Jesus says in John 3:15-18, where He says that theose who don't believe will be damned, to be error. If these who are unbelievers are not given this saving faith, as they are not "elect", then HOW can God Justly condemn to eternal punishment, those who don't believe, becuse they CANNOT! This makes God to be UNJUST.

Calvinism on salvation is AGAINST the Teachings of the Holy Bible!

It doesn't make God unjust. I means you are defining what is just and what is not just for God. You measure Him by yourself. The unbelieving hear the same gospel as the believing do. They are told the same truth. They don't believe because they don't want to. It is the natural state of man, since the fall. The unbelieving are actually the ones that receive God's justice. In order to not accept predestination and specific atonement, you have to find a way to change the clear meaning of every scripture that speaks of the "elect", "chosen," "choose," "called," "foreknown," "foreknew," etc. You have to change the clear meaning of scriptures that say God gives people to the Son. And you have to change the meaning of Eph 1:11-14, and Epn 2:8 which says clearly that the faith unto salvation is a gift from God. It is the faith OF Jesus Gal 2:16. Only He has it, only He can give it.

Calvinism on salvation is not against the teachings of the Bible. But I appreciate that you didn't do as most do and lump all his teachings (without knowing what they are) onto the garbage heap.