Defending the "Universal" Intent of "Kosmos" in John 3:16

I need to do some "housecleaning" here. Here is how things will progress from here. I am going to do one last rebuttal of Turretinfan's arguments on John 3:16 and then we can continue in the comments section of this post. Turretinfan will then post another passage or verse that he would like to bring to attention, to try and show that Jesus died only for the elect, or more broadly, particular redemption alone. We will then continue on the next post just like we have with this series. What I also want to point out, is that Turretinfan and myself also email each other and I want all to know that posts and comments over the internet can seem "harsh" but I want all to know that we actually have had some very good, charitable conversations, over email, making sure that each other is not taking offense. So, if others think that we are "at each other's throats" this is not our intent or desire, it is just to discuss theology in an open forum for other's to engage in.

With that said, I need to also show, once again, what we believe on the atonement. I have gotten some emails and some comments (from others) that would seem to ask, "What do you believe again?" We would take what we feel is the normal reading (I know that Turretinfan will disagree that this is the normal reading, which is the reason for this debate) of John 1:29 that states:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29

So, we believe that Jesus on the cross took away the sins of the world. This death was a penal death, meaning that there is a condition based upon this "taking away" and that would be faith. So, Jesus is the noun, hilasmos (1 John 2:2), that takes away the sins of the entire world. But, the implication, or application for this death, is for the elect upon their belief on Jesus. This is in no way a "hypothetical death" but in reality is a death to take away the sins of the world, but will only be applied at the onset of belief. We believe that we follow the teachings of Dordt when it states:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.



I hope this clears up more on what we believe. We would stand beside all Calvinists and define Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints the exact same, as long as they are not putting forth a stand on hyperism in any of these. In regards to the middle, the "L", we would define Limited Atonement the exact same way, but we would remove that in the limited atonement aspect it is not "only" for the elect, but the atonement was for all, particularly for the elect. We can say particularly because when Jesus died he knew whom the Spirit would draw and whom the Spirit would seal and whom would be His bride (no more, no less). This part, this intention of the atonement, was the "joy that was set before him" (Hebrews 12).

As far as Turretinfan's post on John 3:16, I will put forth a rebuttal and then we can comment further, but I am guessing we will just say that we are going to have to "agree to disagree" and move on to another passage.

My hope in this is that all those reading would see that John 3:16 is not hardlined to mean the elect, but just the opposite. As we debate this topic further hopefully you will be able to see how we can believe that Christ died for all and not be univeralists, which really comes in the understanding of a penal payment, but we will save that for later. I want all to know, I used to be a hard lined limited atonement for the elect only guy. But, I had to ask myself, "What is the understanding of these passages in a reading without trying to put in my theological structure inside it?" Knowing that if I changed my view on John 3:16 and others, I would also need to restructure what I believed on the atonement. Can this fit? Can this make sense? Because I believe in John 10, Eph 5 and the like, that speak about a particular people in the atonement. Can I make the two mesh without destroying the continuity of the Scriptures? I beleive that I can, and the Scriptures do. Hopefully you will see "why?" as we move forward in the debate.

I first want to say that I am sorry if I misrepresented Turretinfan in anyway in this debate. I am not into strawmen and hate them, so I want him to point them out if I enter into a strawman in any way.

As far as his post, I will write some comments and then we can move on.

Turretinfan comments that in the Greek and the Latin that it could read, in regards to "hina" as "so." The problem with this is that this is not concrete, and even Calvin who was very well versed in both the Greek and Latin didn't even take it as such. Calvin says,

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, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:16). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Turretinfan, based on this interpretation of the passage then states, in one of his comments, that to say "so that those believing" is giving a more precise way of saying "world." He then uses an analogy by saying, "everyone, that is, everyone understanding rhetoric" showing his intent.

Here is the problem with this. John 3:16 doesn't read like that. It reads, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosover believes shall not perish.

There is something in between "everyone" and "that is everyone understanding rhetoric." So this does not flow how he would like. So we must ask, if we take Turretinfan's remarks and ask, "How does God show his love for sinners?" "How does a sinner know God loves him?" Because if you use this verse as Turretinfan would like us to believe, this shows love for only the elect not the reprobate.

But, the intent of John 3:16 is to say to everyone: "God loves you." How? He sent his Son. If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask, "How does God giving his Son to others show his love for me?"

Here is the best way I can show for an analogy. By the way, when using analogies you have to look at the verse we are discussing. John 3:16 does not give the full reformed view of the ordo salutis, therefore our analogies don't need to do so as well. So, Bnonn's statement that the analogies fall short because it doesn't talk about the "giving of faith" and the like is really not paramount to this discussion.

Analogy:

I love my whole church, so I send invitations to all for them to come to my birthday party. All those who come to my birthday party will enjoy the fellowship and not be alone at home not enjoying the fellowship.

So, when someone asks in my church, "How do I know that Seth loves me?" They can say,"He sent me an invitation"

What if someone doesn't come? I run into them the following week and we talk. Can they say, "I didn't come because you didn't invite me." No. I invited all to come.
This is how I showed all, that I loved them.

This doesn't mean I love all the same. Please do not read into this analogy other parts of the ordo salutis because that is not the intent of John 3:16. The intent of John 3:16 is to show, "How he loved the world" namely, by sending His Son.

The other part of Turretinfan's argument for "kosmos" really doesn't make sense to me. He states that it means "created order" and does not refer to "humanity." Here is actual comment:

In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.

I am not going to go through all of these verses, but will take a look at both John 7:4-7 and John 15:18.

For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.For not even His brothers were believing in Him. So Jesus said to them, My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 7:4-7

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
John 15:18

So who hates me? Who hated Jesus? Was it the "created order" or was it all of humanity as direct people? Jesus says in John 7 that if you show yourself to the world, the kosmos, then he shows what he is talking about: his specific brothers. He uses this and then tells us the same: The kosmos will hate you, and this is a specific people.

This is the same thing in John 12:47. Turretinfan says that this isn't in context but we can easily refute this being that it is the same author (John), same one being quoted (Jesus) and almost the exact same sentence structure in the Greek.

John 12:46,47 is speaking of God coming into the darkened humanity as a whole, so that the individual one in darkness can be saved. It is taking the whole and bringing it to the individual. I don't understand what is so difficult in understanding this, unless one is trying to bring forth an understanding because of theological convictions.

Jesus says, "I have come as Light into the world." Am I supposed to believe that He came for the created order? What does this mean? Did Jesus come for the rocks and trees? Or, Did Jesus come as the Light for the individuals in the world who love the darkness, so that those who believe in Him will live and not die?

I stand behind my reading of John 3:16 as stated before. God so loved the world, that is, those in darkness, all of them, that He sent his Son, the Light, into the darkened world, so that those who are in the dark, yet believe in Him would not be like those who stay in the dark and perish, but will look to the Light and have eternal life.

God is love, and this is his representation for the entire world to know that he is love, by him giving his Son for the entire world. Otherwise, no sinner, even the future elect, can know that Jesus died for them.

This is why Numbers 21 is brought forth in John 3. To show the love of God. God so loved all those bitten, that he provided a provision for them, so that when they looked they would be saved. If they didn't look, they weren't saved and it was their fault, not God's. Whether there were some who didn't look or not, is not the point, the point is God provided a provision for ALL THOSE THAT WERE BITTEN. To carry this to the usage in the New Testament would mean that God provided a provision in all those who have sinned.