Free will(not to derail another post)

Additionally, while I can totally see the desire to analyze the verse in its own context and I agree that its most reasonable primary meaning and audience is the church. However, what I don't get at all is why some Cist's refuse to accept any other sort of application applied to it. Its not like there are a lack of verses which support the concept of a universal invitation.

So, while the universal reading may be poor hermeneutics (although I am more than open to an analysis which demonstrates its not), its not like the universal reading is doctrinally unsound or contrary to even the Cist position. Neither reading either negates or supports Cism in any significant way.

 

Actually, we can insist that fellowship is meant and we can insist that He is talking to believers. How can we insist this? Because Christ said, "as many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." I find that Hebrews says this about God's chastening: "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

God chastens His children, not those that aren't His children. God doesn't chasten unregenerate men, only born again children of God. Everything in the Laodicean passage cries out that God is dealing with disobedient children. He is rebuking and chastening them. His invitation is not to eternal life, that they already have and are not in danger of losing. His invitation is that He will come in and sup. It is fellowship, plain and simple.

 

I didn't try to argue my point of view on the entire scriptures from this passage. On the contrary, I said even if a universal offer of salvation were true according to the scriptures, this passage still isn't saying that and cannot be used to argue for such a concept.

 

...and who does God love? "For God so loved the world..."

The text actually says He chastens those He loves AND disciplines His children.

 

The text says that He chastens His sons. If he does not chasten you then you are not a son. That is what Hebrews said. Wrest it if you want to, and we could argue what world means all day long, but you cannot argue that Hebrews said if He does not chasten you, then you are not a son. If He does chasten you, then you are a son.

 

By the way, what does world mean in John 12:19?

 

It means people, not believers. Many of those left him, so if you must maintain world here means believers you must also believe man can lose his salvation.

 

No sir, you aren't going to wiggle out. What people does it mean? You say that world means all sinful mankind. Well, did all sinful mankind go after Jesus Christ? Did the Pharisees, who spoke this verse, go after Him? Did every single men in Africa, Europe, Asia, etc. go after Him?

 

What is there to wiggle out of? You ever hear the word hyperbole? Sinful mankind does not violate this understanding. It's ironic in THIS text you want to be so literal :BangHead:

So if it means believers...how did most stop following him?

 

You take "world" in John 3:16 universal. Why won't you do the same with John 12:19? Or how about John 15:18 and 19? Perhaps you'll be consistent with 1 John 5:19 or John 17:9.

 

Tell you what, answer my question and I'll entertain yours.

 

No sir, we aren't playing this game. Your question brings up a totally different topic, that topic being to what extent believers will follow Jesus in obedience. We can discuss this topic elsewhere, but you aren't going to deflect from the topic at hand, which is your inconsistent usage of the word world. Really, your question isn't even hinted at in John 12:19.

You can refuse to address this topic if you desire, but you aren't going to deflect me down a totally different road. Really, your refusal to address the inconsistency with which you define world in the scriptures is very telling. If it is so clear that world means all mankind without exception, then you should be able to handle those verses I referred to with ease. You should be able to plug in that exact definition and have the text make perfect sense.

 

I'm not playing a game...and your refusal to answer speaks volumes. I never said "world" meant all mankind without exception, "whole world" encompasses that. World means mankind, geographic location or world system depending on the context. It NEVER means just believers.

 

Who does God love according to John 3:16?

 

Apparently it might be good to remember that words can be spoken of in both a specific sense as well a general sense. We see this general sense quite beautifully in John 12:19 whereby the Pharisees state the world has gone after Jesus..

Now.. did the Pharisees also go after Jesus? No.. thus contextually we note it is being conveyed in a general sense though meaning the multitude of the masses. (including the Greeks, thus they are denoting the Jews who followed were no different than the world itself)

 

In that context it's sinful mankind (could also be the universe as all creation groans waiting redemption). Whosoever out of the world (men) believe will receive eternal life. The "world" here is not "believers" as you are trying to fit the square peg into the round hole using your presupposition of limited atonement.

 

Which men? All men universally, or part of the whole race? I still haven't gotten a clear answer on this. Does God love the entire human race without exception per John 3:16 or a part of that race?

Allow me to say this: I believe that whosoever here are believers and are the same people as comprise the world God loved. However, I do believe the word world here, as well as in other passages, is meant to convey various kinds of men in response to the Jewish notion of Messiah's blessings being confined to the Jewish people. In other words, the word itself typically means all kinds, with the context telling us which group he refers to. I can't think of a single instance where it means universally without exception. I can think of places where God's people are not meant and some where they are.

 

In other words, where a universal meaning won't fit we find another meaning. How convenient.

 

"If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." The hoops you have to jump through in interpreting such a simple verse most children know it by heart is astounding. Why don't you think John just said "For God so loved various kinds (or all kinds) of men that He gave His only begotten Son that the whosoevers who believe will not perish but have eternal life"?

 

...you mean like you do with the way the OT and NT uses the word "world"?