tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post3007422976097607818..comments2024-02-13T11:03:01.140-05:00Comments on By The Tree: Swordfight: "kosmos" in John 3:16Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-44046026787032003812022-07-20T01:20:10.274-04:002022-07-20T01:20:10.274-04:00"The first thing to notice about this text is..."The first thing to notice about this text is that it does not mention atonement..."<br /><br />I have no idea what Bible you are reading, but the cited verses clearly refer to the atonement. Briefly, first, "that [God] gave us His only begotten" hearkens back to God's command to Abraham to "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac...and offer him" as a sacrifice. Second, I don't know where you get the idea that v.14 does not anticipate v.16, but whether or not the snakes died is irrelevant; the point is that the OT reference anticipates Christ being lifted up in such a manner as to provide forgiveness of sin and healing to all who look to Him.<br /><br />"John's purpose throughout the chapter seems to be to teach how people enter the kingdom of God..."<br /><br />Yes, and they are to enter the Kingdom by virtue of being "born from above" through faith in Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.<br /><br />" it does not appear that John's purpose in this text was to teach about the extent of the atonement."<br /><br />My article already showed that the extent of the atonement is universal. Unfortunately, you did not really rebut it in any way except to just repeat the error.<br /><br />It is obvious that you are not familiar with the Greek. The Greek construction of pas in John 3:16 is a generalization, therefore, "whoever" or "or anyone" are correct translations. See: https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/does-john-3-16-say-whoever<br /><br />I do not think any Biblical, theological, or NT Greek scholar would agree with your assessment; even Calvinist disagree with you. I have never heard a Calvinist suggest that John 3:14-16 had no reference to atonement, etc., as you claim. I must respectfully suggest that your interpretive skills are loose and lacking serious study. It seems to me that you are mainly basing your interpretation of the text on your presuppositions.<br /><br />For the most part, it seems to me my article ready answers your objection, especially with the Greek in connection to the meaning of "world," which you ignored.<br /><br />Your comment is appreciated, nevertheless, and please accept my apology for taking a year to post it and respond. I had not seen it until today. <br /><br />You may want to purchase "Grasping God's Word" in book form and video lectures.Nelson Banuchinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-13629346316370440112021-08-30T00:07:59.610-04:002021-08-30T00:07:59.610-04:00John 3:16-17 is a pretty common text that people u...John 3:16-17 is a pretty common text that people use as an objection to limited atonement. The basic idea behind the objection is generally that because God's love for the world motivated him to give his Son in order to save the world, therefore Jesus atoned for everyone in the world.<br /><br />The first thing to notice about this text is that it does not mention atonement, the cross, Jesus' death, or anything else that might be taken as an explicit reference to the idea of atonement (John 3:14 is not a reference to Jesus being physically lifted up on the cross, but figuratively lifted up as the object of hope and salvation -- remember the serpent was not killed). Thus, it does not appear that John's purpose in this text was to teach about the extent of the atonement.<br /><br />Rather, John's purpose throughout the chapter seems to be to teach how people enter the kingdom of God, especially through regeneration by the Holy Spirit and by faith in Christ. The section of text in question deals most directly with the idea of salvation through faith in Christ (John 3:13-21), that is, with faith as the means of salvation. It does not deal with the atonement as the basis for justification.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the text does tell us something about God's intention in sending Christ, and this intention implies certain things regarding the extent of the atonement. Specifically, it tells us: 1) that God sent Christ in order to save "everyone who believes" (John 3:16); and 2) that God sent Christ in order to save the world (John 3:17).<br /><br />The first point is not so clear in most translations. The Greek, however, is quite clear. It identifies a specific group of people whom God sent Christ to save, and it labels them "all the believers" (pas ho pisteuon). Greek does have a way to say "whoever" (hos tis), but that is not the language used here. More literally, the text ought to be translated something like: "in order that everyone who believes in him should not perish." Older translations often render the verse in this way (e.g. Wiclif [1380], Tyndale [1534], Geneva [1557], Rheims [1582]), as do modern versions such as the NRSV. The same is true throughout this passage (e.g. John 3:18). In other words, neither in John 3:16 nor anywhere else in this context does John state that it was God's intention to make salvation possible for everyone, or to save an undefined group of people. Instead, he states that God's purpose was to save all the believers. Clearly, a universal atonement is not necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose. Rather, the fact that God's purpose was limited to saving believers actually strengthens the case for limited atonment by demonstrating that it was never God's intention to save everyone.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00016201237913089124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-87157800610264348152017-06-06T16:54:37.282-04:002017-06-06T16:54:37.282-04:00Yes, I also have the 1966 ed. of Vines. Vones was...Yes, I also have the 1966 ed. of Vines. Vones was one of the many language resources I used to research the issue. I just tried to cite what is more recent in case anyone charged me with using "old" resources. Vine's is a very helpful resource; an "oldie but goodie." Thanks for your input.Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-74524607777499242792017-06-06T11:19:11.362-04:002017-06-06T11:19:11.362-04:00Another widely accepted Greek authority / source i...Another widely accepted Greek authority / source is W. E. Vine printing 1966 Page 233 Deff. of the word "world" item (c) ...all men... then cites John 1:9,10,3:16,17,19,4:42Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-16850522688897337742016-10-15T01:53:50.853-04:002016-10-15T01:53:50.853-04:00I‘m not sure I understand what you’re attempting t...I‘m not sure I understand what you’re attempting to say but it seems you agree that "kosmos" in Jn 3:16 means "believers only." If that's the case, allow me to briefly respond in disagreement to some of the things you mention. <br /><br />Re: Pr 16:4, if you're suggesting that God created men morally evil than you will need to affirm that God is the author of evil, which does not fit the Bible's characterization of God.<br /><br />Again, if you're suggesting that Rom 9:22 is teaching that God purposely created certain people in order that he can express, not love and salvation but, anger and damnation against them, then you are affirming a god whose character is unlike how the Bible portrays it.<br /><br />And, finally, if you are suggesting that Jude teaches that there are certain men, whom God created wicked for the express purpose of forming them to endure eternal the terrors and pain of an eternal damnation, then, again, you are imagining a god that in nowhere enters into the Biblical framework. As such, you pose a good question, "how can God love men he has fitted to destruction?" And if you are implying there are those whom God has created to hate and does hate, again, you are positing a God not found anywhere in the Bible.<br /><br />To your comment specifically on Jn 3:16: (a) the context makes more sense when "kosmos" is understood as the "world," that is as Thayer defines it, "the inhabitants of the earth," and not "believers only." You would have to show how (b) In any case, there is no other place in the NT where "kosmos" refers to "believers only." (c) Even Calvinist scholars, like D.A. Carson, refute the notion that "kosmos" in Jn 3:16 refers to "believers only."<br /><br />Again, I'm not too clear on what you're trying to say, so if you respond to my comment, please be a bit more clear and precise. If I misunderstood you, please accept my apologies. Thanks.Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-8582808422293156412016-10-14T22:41:14.090-04:002016-10-14T22:41:14.090-04:00In the context of John 3:16 'KOSMOS' perta...In the context of John 3:16 'KOSMOS' pertains to G2865...isn't it. Context is how word should be defined.Bible says God created the wicked for the day of evil and Bible says 'vessels of wrath fitted(fully accomplished) to destruction. Men who were of old ordained unto condemnation (proverbs, Romans,Jude) how can God love men he has fitted to destruction? To be all of mankind 'KOSMOS' would not fit context of passage because it would be in conflict with these and other verses...I could be wrong but this seems like a good way to shed light on kosmos in John 3:16... Eli EliUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02384694791183711224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-37220612180802632822014-03-17T21:07:45.172-04:002014-03-17T21:07:45.172-04:00Hi, David. Your welcome. I'm happy to know t...Hi, David. Your welcome. I'm happy to know the article was helpful for you.Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-3851982788140738262014-03-15T23:52:44.013-04:002014-03-15T23:52:44.013-04:00Thank you for your research and efforts to clear u...Thank you for your research and efforts to clear up this misunderstanding Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410237183513900851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-64307022674076994892014-03-15T23:19:32.537-04:002014-03-15T23:19:32.537-04:00You may contact Kielar here: production@crosstv.co...You may contact Kielar here: production@crosstv.com. I'm not sure he'll respond.Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-28896379065509454372014-03-15T23:13:12.640-04:002014-03-15T23:13:12.640-04:00The answer to the first, I would think Keilar migh...The answer to the first, I would think Keilar might say both, although primarily as faith in God through Christ.<br /><br />To answer the second, I'm pretty sure Keilar would tell you that the Greek literally reads (off the top of my head), "all the ones believing", which he is correct; however, it has no reference to particular persons. It's emphasis is not on the individual but on the point that eternal life is obtained only through faith, and faith in Christ. Therefore, whoever exercises faith escapes eternal damnation.<br />Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12470212473565517507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-12905930661865089042014-03-15T18:12:23.210-04:002014-03-15T18:12:23.210-04:002 questions for Kielar...
1. If definition for the...2 questions for Kielar...<br />1. If definition for the word "kosmos" is for "believers only", believers of God or Christ?<br />2. What does the word whosoever pertain to in same scripture passage?Wesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2402042634561558625.post-1142000449177017882014-03-15T12:45:36.007-04:002014-03-15T12:45:36.007-04:001. I would like to know if Kielar's definition...1. I would like to know if Kielar's definition of kosmos is believers only, is that belief in God or Christ.<br />2. How does he define the word "whosoever " in the same John 3:16 verse?Wesnoreply@blogger.com