Francis Turretin vs. Jesus Christ on the World of John 3:16

Thus far, we've looked at John Owen and Arthur W. Pink's rendition of the word "world" in John 3:16. While some have logged on either denying it matters what the biblical text actually says (see here), others have falsely but desperately and incredibly claimed I'm putting words in the author's mouth (e.g see here, here). What no one has demonstrated thus far is, how either Owen or Pink's rendition of KOSMOS ("world" in John 3:16) as the world of "believers only" (or world of the "elect") is deduced from the biblical text itself and not inferred from preconceived theological notions imposed upon the biblical text.

Strict Calvinists never cease upon insisting we must go by what Scripture actually says not what either our traditions or personal preferences dictate. Granted. We agree.

Even so, here's a test case for strict Calvinists: show us from the biblical text itself how KOSMOS (i.e. world) in John 3:16 must be taken as the world of either "elect" or "believers" as strict Calvinists routinely maintain and do so without theological presuppositions imposed upon the biblical text but from the meaning of the biblical words themselves.

Frankly, I doubt the strict Calvinist can do so for the simple reason that no Greek lexicon, dictionary, or other scholarly language tool will come to their rescue and substantiate their undeniable eisigetical rendering of KOSMOS to be world of the elect...world of believers. For them, one might reasonable conclude, systematic theology trumps textual exegesis, an upside down hermeneutic, a hermeneutic that ultimately sustains not the biblical text but traditional theology, the very thing they never cease insisting we should forever abandon.

Let's log another hero from the strict Calvinist's hall of theological fame--Francis Turretin (1623-1687). As before with both Owen and Pink, we'll quote Jesus in John 3:16 and contrast it with my inference from Turretin's rendering of KOSMOS (i.e. world) in John 3:16: 

Jesus Christ and John 3:16:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (ESV, italics added) 

Francis Turretin and John 3:16:

"For God so loved the elect of every nation that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life"¹

From my query thus far, there seems to be substantial unity on one hand and a grand divide on the other. The substantial unity comes from strict Calvinists John Owen, Arthur W. Pink, and Francis Turretin concluding without reservation that God so loved the elect that He gave His only Son while Jesus stands greatly divided from them, even standing alone, in undeniably, unequivocally declaring that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.

And so, a significant question naturally arises: shall we affirm the united voice of strict Calvinism which in one accord proclaims God so loved the elect He gave His only Son, or shall we hearken to the indisputable words of our one and only Savior and eternal God born in human flesh as He stands alone and divided from the strict Calvinists we've assembled thus far, steadily and clearly assuring us it was because He so loved the world that He gave His only Son?

That is the question.

That is the question.

That is the question.

That is the question. 

And, a significant question indeed.     

 

¹Turretin writes: "As the act of God by which he chose to pass by a certain number of men and not appoint them to salvation, was done from eternity, there never existed a period when they, the world for whom Christ does not pray, were viewed in any other light than as excluded from the benefits of his mediation and intercession. It forms no objection to this that God is said “to have so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish;” because, as will be made to appear in the proper place, this does not extend to all men of all nations, but to the elect of every nation” (The Atonement of Christ, Francis Turretin (1623-1687); Translated by James R. Wilson, 1859; Kindle edition, 2011, location #1321, italics added). It remains clear Turretin was quoting John 3:16, rendering "world" as extending to only the "elect of every nation."

Note also the staggering words with which Turretin introduces his quote from John 3:16: "It forms no objection to this that God is said “to have so loved the world..." Turretin is about to quote the very words of Christ. And, yet he says of our Lord's words, "it forms no objection" to his theological argument? The unimaginable distance to which our arrogant theological systems will haul our wretched souls!  Even Jesus' words form no objection to Turretin's forged beliefs? Is this the inevitable fate of all strict Calvinists? We trust not. Better to be inconsistent or a "paradoxicalist" than follow down the theologically incorrigible path of Turretin, Owen, or Pink (for "paradoxicalist" see here, footnote #6) 

What is more, Turretin made similar, even identical, conclusions concerning the "world" of John 1:29. He writes: 'When Christ is said to be "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) the elect world is meant' concluding "No other world can be meant in these passages but the world of the elect...[passages including John 3:16-17, 4:42, 6:33 besides 1:29]" (location #1579; cp. #1563; italics added). Hence, it seems a fair deduction to assume Turretin would render John 3:16 as I inferred above.

Comments

[Max]

Re: Jesus' words "the world" vs. Turretin's opinion "the elect of every nation", I'll go with Jesus every time!

I've often thought that the warning given in Revelation 22:18-19 about adding and/or removing words from that book ought to be at the end of every book of the Bible. Jesus also warned us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men.

Herein frames our debate: "Is that what God said?" Human intellect will never answer that question - we must build our faith on revealed truth, not the words of mere men. I fear there is more indoctrination of young minds going on in SBC ranks than Holy Spirit education ... there is a big difference!

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

As I said the other day, I see no reason, as a proponent of LA) to try and nterpret "world" as the elect. I think the case for LA can be made on it's own merit in other ways and places.

But I have a question. What role do you see the so-called "analogy of faith" (AF) or "analogy of scripture" playing in our understanding of this passage? Any?

Theopedia says of AF, "The analogy of faith was a key principle of interpretation taught by the Reformers which which teaches that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession (1.9) in this manner: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.""

It seems to me that the general atonement (GA) folks and the LA folks (those such as me and for instance DA Carson) end up needing to marshall other scriptures to help us each deal with what can seem to be conflicting texts. i.e. some texts seem to say Christ died for all. Other texts seem to indicate Christ died only for some.

Since I can't footnote as a commenter, here is some of what Carson said:

"Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different."

and...

"I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter)."

So, I'm asking whatever John 3.16 means by world, we each must interpret it in light of all of scripture, particularly what the scriptures say about the nature and extent of the atonement, right?

Les

[Scott Shaver]

I think likewise I will go with Christ and no further with man-made confessional statements about scripture than Article 1 of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message: "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

Rats, John Gerstner called Turretin "the most precise theologian in the Calvistic tradtion". Yet Turretin is no more help for me on the "kosmos" of John 3:16 than Pink or Owen. I understand that Puritans were fond of him however.

[Christiane]

Cosmos is God's Creation:
all that is seen and unseen . . . ALL generally means ALL

I think people have to understand that IF humankind fell through the first Adam,
then humankind could be saved through the second Adam, Our Lord

Calvinists have the one teaching that is a part of their whole thought system that doesn't line up with the Incarnation. We may not understand the mystery of the Incarnation, but we know this:
God in the Second Person assumed full humanity in the Incarnation without 'blending' His Divinity and His Humanity together, and neither did His Divinity contradict His Humanity. Our Lord through the Incarnation was fully God and fully Man. There is no mention of His only assuming the kind of humanity that was 'elect' . . . it's just not there.

It isn't there in Scripture.

[Les Prouty]

Sorry,

I should have also included what Carson said about love which he refers to:

"But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God."

And a source (at least one source). http://theologymatters.blogspot.com/2006/02/d-carson-on-extent-of-atonement.html

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Les,

Not to dismiss all you wrote, and you wrote a lot, but the real kicker you penned at the end as a question: "I'm asking whatever John 3.16 means by world, we each must interpret it in light of all of scripture, particularly what the scriptures say about the nature and extent of the atonement, right?"

No, we do not interpret words based upon preconceived theology, Les. Have we lost all sense of the histrio-grammatical approach to the biblical text? The text in John 3:16 informs one's understanding of the nature and extent of the atonement. It's not there as a wax nose to be molded and shaped by what one thinks one knows. Recall what I wrote in the footnote if you read it. Turretin said without the least hesitation, "It forms no objection to this [that is, his theological argument] that God is said “to have so loved the world..." Sweet heavens! Not even Jesus' words can inform his preconceived ideas about the extent of atonement?

Thus, theology cannot and must not overturn sound exegesis. And, if that goes contrary to what you cite as the "analogy of faith" then so be it, Les. What we derive from the text--truth embedded in the text--always precedes what we derive from theological deduction.

[Jim G.]

Hi Les,

Even though you and I are on opposite sides of the Reformed fence, we will surely both agree that election and atonement occur "in Christ."

Let me ask a question: who exactly is "in Christ?" Is it the elect only, or all humanity? Now the phrase "in Christ" should not be taken in a monolithic manner from Scripture, as even Calvin himself saw at least three different shades of meaning in the saving union. Is there any sense in which the non-elect are "in Christ" at all? I think this would shed some light on the extent of the atonement.

Jim G.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

"No, we do not interpret words based upon preconceived theology, Les. Have we lost all sense of the histrio-grammatical approach to the biblical text? The text in John 3:16 informs one's understanding of the nature and extent of the atonement."

I did not mean, or did not mean to imply, that "we...interpret words based upon preconceived theology." If that's what you got then I am not communicating well.

I mean this. There are other scriptures that speak to the atonement, correct? Should we not look across other passages and what they say about the atonement and bring those to bear on any one verse or passage (such as j316)?

That's all I'm saying. Hodge said, "Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject."

So, grant that "world" means all the world. Not the elect only. Now, what does it mean that God loved the world in such a way that He gave His son? Did He die for them all? Did He atone for their sins? Even granting world does not mean elect, there are different interpretations of what "God giving His son for the world" means. Carson for example, unless I misread him.

Has it occured to you that you could possibly be allowing your theology to influence your understanding of the passage? Again, what is the nature of the atonement must be considered.

[Steven]

Peter:

I am a Calvinist, but I don't think that there is a "united voice of strict Calvinism which in one accord proclaims 'God so loved the elect He gave His only Son.'" Undeniably there are some prominent and not so prominent theologians throughout history and even to this very day that misinterpret the Greek word "KOSMOS" as elect. But I don't believe from that fact that you can conclude that it is a "united voice" or a universal absolute.

Phil Johnson, Dr. John MacArthur's right-hand-man has stated that Pink's position "is not historic mainstream Calvinism." Johnson goes on to point out that John Calvin even wrote with regard to John 3:16 that "He has used a general term ["whosoever"], both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such also is the significance of the term 'world' which he had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God's favour, He nevertheless shows He is favorable to the whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life."

Additionally, our friends over at Founders Ministries, in some of their notes on this passage stated that "to make good sense of this passage, we must interpret the expression world in 16 and 17 as broadly as we understand the same word in 19. Clearly the word world has a universal and corporate aspect that envelops more than just the elect alone. God’s love is for the world in general, the human race, all humanity."

Here are two ready examples of Calvinists that reject the misinterpretation that you ascribe to all Calvinist “which in one accord proclaims God so loved the elect.” I would not be surprised if there were other prominent Calvinist that reject the "world=elect" formulation. Are there some that affirm this formulation: unequivocally, yes. However, that does not mean that ALL Calvinist agree with it. In these brief examples I think that you see Calvinists who "without theological presuppositions imposed upon the biblical text" interpret this word in scripture very much as you do.

Steven

[Lydia]

"Turretin said without the least hesitation, "It forms no objection to this [that is, his theological argument] that God is said “to have so loved the world..."

Special knowledge?

[Scott Shaver]

Peter, here again is one of my rubs with reform Calvinism. I would be willing to peacefully coexist, work and worship with folks who hold the views Les holds.

That is until they start publicly insisting and coercing folks rather than silently and privately preferring that "all Christians confess in a slightly different sense, Jesus Christ in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone".

Until we know whether or not the "elect alone" theological argument has any earthly value, and we won't this side of the veil, I will go with the words of Jesus and the context of the passage as far as any superimposed rendition of "kosmos" is concerned.

Additionally, I fail to see how such a historical- grammatical approach strays far from what Les says he prefers in terms of allowing scripture to interpret scripture. The only difference is one spends less time chasing down proof texts to buttress his or her own pet system of theology.

[Les Prouty]

Hello Jim G.

I'll be happy (as time allows) to respond to your view of the "in Christ" question.

Scott,

"Peter, here again is one of my rubs with reform Calvinism. I would be willing to peacefully coexist, work and worship with folks who hold the views Les holds."

Thanks I think. Really though, I would hope so. Unless you consider my views outside Christian orthodoxy. I have a Christian ministry in Haiti and would welcome you to come along and join in, Reformed or not. Our main partner there is not Reformed as far as I know. It hasn't come up. And I don't really care if they are or not.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

First, you write: "There are other scriptures that speak to the atonement...Should we not look across other passages and what they say about the atonement and bring those to bear on any one verse or passage? It's not that a verse stands in isolation, no; of course not. But neither do we allow other Scriptures to actually change the grammatical content of a verse. Please offer some particular examples in other doctrines where one is forced to actually correct the grammatical meaning of a verse of Scripture. Then I'll understand your point.

Now, I'm asking you, does KOSMOS mean in John 3:16 what strict Calvinists routinely declare or does it mean what Greek lexicons universally affirm? Simple question Les. Very simple.

And, whatever Hodge says, if he meant Scripture corrects Scripture--which is what one is arguing if one suggests KOSMOS means "world of the elect," then he is abusing the so-called "analogy of Scripture" so far as I am concerned.

Now, as far as what the implications are if "world" is granted rather than "elect", I defer to Turretin, Pink, and Owen for they believe much of the strict Calvinistic system so far as Limited Atonement is concerned is forfeited.

Finally, have you not kept up? For Carson, other Scriptures on the atonement cannot and do not and must not overturn the grammatical meaning of world in John 3:16. He flat denies world means "world of the elect." So what is your point, Les? I'm beginning to get confused as to what you're actually wanting to accomplish in the exchange.

[peter lumpkins]

Steven,

Please read more closely my proposition: I specifically noted three strict Calvinists--Pink, Owen, Turrentin--Calvinists we've assembled thus far which stand as the united voice on KOSMOS as "world of the elect." Moreover, I'm quite sure many strict Calvinists such as yourself concede world does not denote "world of the elect". I cataloged three of them in the post I ran Monday including D.A. Carson and John Calvin himself. Thus your conclusion is unwarranted that I attributed to "all Calvinists" as being in "one accord" that "God so loved the elect.”

So, on the one hand some popular strict Calvinists maintain textual integrity (Carson, Calvin) by not playing footsies with the grammatical rendering of the biblcial text while others (Owens, Pink, Turretin) visibly appear to allow their theological commitments to override their commitment to the biblical text.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

Sorry you are confused. I'm sure it's my fault. I have already said that "KOSMOS" in J316 does not mean "elect." It does not need to measn that for one to hold to LA. If I need to make that clearer, I'll type it a 3rd or 4th time. I'm losing count.

"For Carson, other Scriptures on the atonement cannot and do not and must not overturn the grammatical meaning of world in John 3:16. He flat denies world means "world of the elect.""

Yes, I think I've kept up. Hey, I'm the one referring to Carson as one who holds LA AND doesn't think KOSMOS means "elect."

All I am asking, going back to the beginning, is does the analogy of scripture enter into the discussions of what is meant by J316? NOT what KOSMOS means. I'm not arguing against you on KOSMOS.

But I'm asking if you see the analogy of scripture playing a role in what J316 means by God giving His son to the KOSMOS. i.e. You will see in that verse an atonement for the sins of every individual (i think that's your position) and that Calvinists are undone by this verse. Right? Calvinists such as Carson will grant KOSMOS does not mean elect and disageee with you on an "atonement for the sins of every individual."

If you are still confused, then I'll give up and bow out.

Les

[peter lumpkins]

Les & Scott

I'm not sure Scott meant by working together the overseas mission work but I may be wrong. I think he meant church and church, pastor and pastor as in the same denomination. Scott, Les is a Presbyterian Christian. He often comments here (which is no problem, of course). Unfortunately, many take Les' words as if Les is speaking as a Southern Baptist Calvinist.

[Les Prouty]

Oh, and I'm on leave from a computer for several hours going forward. If I do not respond very quickly, I plan to be back later tonight.

[peter lumpkins]

Ok, Les. Since you've said now for the third (or is it fourth?) time you don't believe KOSMOS is "world of the elect" what are you actually asking? You're posting a lot of digital ink but the question is why? And don't respond about what, Les? (assuming you're referring to the exchange with me). I got no beef with you if you accept KOSMOS in its grammatical sense not in a plastic, theological sense imposed upon the text.

[Scott Shaver]

Les:

Both this side and the other side of Heaven, do you think God is as nervous as you are about whether folks have properly systematized their thoughts on the nature of the atonement? Is He as nervous as you apparently seem to be about the possible bad earthly outcomes of a "flawed theology which squeezes out other things"?

Or will the fire of God's glory burn away such concerns and cut straight to essence of what the individual did with the following two claims irrespective of his or her theological prowess?

(1) I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by Me. (2) For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten son; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

I would speculate that not all of God's "elect" spend their lives and every waking hour in the study of theology and church history.

If the work of regenerative grace is, as our Calvinist friends claim they believe, the work of God alone from beginning to end, why not be satisfied simply to proclaim Christ crucified, resurrected and coming again while letting the chips fall where they may in regard to God's ongoing work in the lives of others?

With that I am not Peter.

[peter lumpkins]

Btw, Steven

After reading your comment further, I want to make a couple more responses. First, it's hard to imagine a more popular High Calvinist than A.W. Pink. He may be the most popular author amongst the masses (older author at least). Second, it's very difficult to accept that Founders generally would deny John Owens and F. Turretin's view. Hence, you've sparked in me a bit of an urge to do some rummaging around.

Thanks for your contribution...

[Scott Shaver]

Les:

I'm sorry for having misidentified you as a SBC Calvinist. Presbyterians in my experience have been much easier to talk with about these matters. Look forward to talking with you more later.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

Quick comment. Regarding my questions, I do as I said and bow out. Thanks for bearing with me.

Scott, be back later to respond when I have more time.

[Eman]

Peter,

You refuse to deal with the greater commentary on John 3:16 which transcends Pink, Turriten, Spurgeon, Wesley, Whitefield, Calvin, Beza, Augustine, or any other figure of church history. The greater commentary is the Word of God.

The "world" of John 3:16 is absolutely a reference to the elect from all people groups on planet earth through history. For instance, it is impossible to reconcile the Word of God together through your Arminian interpretation.

Romans 8:28-30 speaks of glorified believers as ONLY those who have been justified. But further, it also states that the glorified believers are ONLY those who have been elected. Any person who has been elected and predestinated by God WILL be justified through the means of gospel preaching and WILL be glorified.

In Matthew 1:21 Jesus is said to be coming to earth through the womb of Mary to "save His people from their sins."

If Jesus loved all people in the same way - we have some serious questions to ask about the following:

1. The people in hell at the moment Jesus died and said "It is finished."

2. The Pharaoh of Exodus and Romans 9.

3. The Esau who was more "moral" and the firstborn, but was rejected by God who instead chose Jacob.

When you interpret world as intended - "all people groups on planet earth" you see the plan of God in Jesus Christ as He reconciled a people from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. That is the picture of how God closed out the Word - Revelation 5!

Deal with the Scriptures rather than running to commentaries to prove your point....

[Scott Shaver]

After a second and third review of Les and Pete's ongoing conversation, I think Les has conceded or at least singled out some strict Calvinists who do not believe that the "kosmos" of John 3:16 is a reference to "the elect".

He goes on after making this concession however to keep posing the question of whether or not our interpretative conclusions on 3:16 should nevertheless be filtered through the exercise of "scriptural analogy".

In my opinion, Les, Peter implies that he has no problem with allowing scripture to interpret scripture in situations where the text is inherently problematic, but he does offer a qualifier in such situations. "It's not that a verse stands in isolation, no; of course not. But neither do we allow other Scriptures to actually change the grammatical content of a verse."

I cannot speak for Pete at this point but here is my take. John 3:16 when read in its full historical-grammatical context is not problematic as far as deriving an understanding of Christ's meaning through the biblical writer's use of the term in question (i.e. kosmos).

Earlier in this thread Pete stated the word "kosmos" in 3:16 is not a wax nose that we are free to mold and shape by whatever we think we know.

Additionally, you are correct that there are other passages which speak to the subject of the atonement. Some of them more detailed about the mechanics of atonement than others. This passage, in my opinion, speaks primarily to the unfathomable potential of God's offer in Christ.

Sadly, not everyone who is exposed to the message and offer of salvation in Christ will effectually receive it. It doesn't really matter at that point whether their final spiritual condition was the result of being elected or rejected through the foreknowledge of God,they will be finally and ultimately condemned for having not appropriated God's offer of salvation through faith in Christ.

I think you are a tad off base in your assumption that Pete or myself for that matter) see an "atonement for the sins of every individual in this passage." We do however see unlimited potential for the grace of God to work through Christ in the redemption of man.

With all due respect Les, I would rather wait until after the Great White Throne than speculate in advance the number, identities, or preordination status of the non-elect.

Fair enough?

[Les Prouty]

Scott,

"Both this side and the other side of Heaven, do you think God is as nervous as you are about whether folks have properly systematized their thoughts on the nature of the atonement? Is He as nervous as you apparently seem to be about the possible bad earthly outcomes of a "flawed theology which squeezes out other things"?"

Well, To the extent that I may be nervous, no. God is not nervous about anything. I don't think I am either...except that I always try to stay aware that my theology has holes in it. I just don't know where they are. I truly want to get it right. I know I don't always so that grieves me.

"Or will the fire of God's glory burn away such concerns and cut straight to essence of what the individual did with the following two claims irrespective of his or her theological prowess?

(1) I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by Me."

Of course I wholeheartedly affirm this.

(2) For God so loved the world He gave his only begotten son; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.""

And this as well.

"I would speculate that not all of God's "elect" spend their lives and every waking hour in the study of theology and church history." Agreed.

"If the work of regenerative grace is, as our Calvinist friends claim they believe, the work of God alone from beginning to end, why not be satisfied simply to proclaim Christ crucified, resurrected and coming again while letting the chips fall where they may in regard to God's ongoing work in the lives of others?"

Well that's what I try to do. I try to proclaim that Jesus is the only way one can see heaven and that men, women, boys and girls should repent and turn to Christ, crying out to Him to be saved from their sin. There is no other way. My role is to proclaim. God's role, if you will, is to save. On that we can agree, right?

As to "Presbyterians in my experience have been much easier to talk with about these matter," well, Peter may disagree since with a lot of digital ink spilled by me I wasn't able to communicate very well. But we keep trying.

Maybe I should ID myself as currently a Presbyterian (PCA) ruling elder. I could call myself "Ruling Elder Les" or such and tweak Lydia at the same time. :)

Blessings to you brother. I Look forward to talking with you more later as well.

Les

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

"well, Peter may disagree since with a lot of digital ink spilled by me I wasn't able to communicate very well." Perhaps you weren't connecting because you really didn't disagree with me about 'world' but somehow managed to drone on and on about it. And, I think if you or others go back thru the comments, they'll see some of the pointlessness of our exchange. Sorry, but my time is limited, brother.

[Andrew Barker]

I see that kosmos is now redefined as "the elect of all people groups on planet earth"!

Makes interesting reading when you substitute it into 1 John 5:4 "For whatever is born of God overcomes the elect of all people groups on planet earth; and this is the victory that has overcome the elect of all people groups on planet earth-- our faith.

Is this the same John? And has he any idea of the trouble he has caused because he was deficient in his use of language. I mean, didn't he know the word for elect?

[peter lumpkins]

 

Eman,

Glad you returned even if you returned on the wrong thread. Know I need to thank you. Your contribution serves as the quintessential model of preconceived, incorrigible theology trumping biblical exegesis, a model for which all may observe and from which all may learn.

First, you claim of me that I supposedly “refuse to deal with the greater commentary on John 3:16” which you identify as the “Word of God.” Well, Eman, I have no problem per se in viewing Scripture as a whole or as a “commentary” so to speak on a smaller corpus of revelation. What I have profound difficulties with, however, is one verse correcting the text of another verse  which is what you’re suggesting. No thanks. I’ll let you and whoever else is bold enough to pursue that line of interpretation have at it.

What is more, the questions you asked on the Pink post are questions which dealt with a) 1 Cor 2:14 - can a natural man believe; b) Ephesians 1:3-6 and what being “chosen” means; c) Ephesians 2:1ff about being “dead” in sin. So, I’m supposed to really believe you that these passages constitute a “commentary” on what the word KOSMOS literally means in John 3:16?  Unconditional Election and Total Depravity are commentaries on John's recording of Jesus’ word, world?

I’d say that’s a perfect example of just how far strict Calvinists go down the pike in allowing their theological presuppositions to dictate what the Word of God must mean. A simple question crashes the Calvinist hermeneutical plane you're flying into the jagged rocks below: how is it you come to your surefire conclusion that Paul’s letters take precedence over Jesus’ words? Why cannot John 3:16 take precedence over Ephesians and Corinthians? Or, why cannot John 3:16 correct the Calvinist’s understanding of Ephesians and Corinthians? Or, to use your word, serve as a “commentary” on Ephesians, Corinthians, or any other biblical text for that matter? I personally know why "world" in John 3:16 is interpreted in light of Ephesians and Corinthians, and you do too, as did Turretin, Owen, and many many other strict Calvinists (not ALL). If the textual meaning of world in John 3:16 is conceded, much of the strict Calvinist’s systematic theological real estate must be auctioned off. Of course, that’s why you’re so rigidly opposed to world in its lexical sense rather than a manufactured theological sense being imposed from without (more on this later).

In addition, you end up making of Scripture what J.H. Hinton said of many in his day who

“press one class of passages to an extreme signification, inconsistent with the natural and obvious meanings of others, so that the latter remain as difficulties…to be evaded than as sources of instruction to be explored” (Works, 1864-1865, p.368).

Similarly, the way you handle the straight-forward personal words of Jesus to Nicodemus is more of an objection to overcome than an inspired insight to be understood. I want no part of this rigid, incorrigible theological notion overlayed onto all of Scripture. The Church of Christ (denomination) has its five proof texts for being “BAPtized” so that our sins will be remitted, texts serving as colored lens through which to judge the entire NT plan of salvation; and extreme, unbalanced Calvinism which you seem to embrace has its lens as well, a lens which can be spelled in five letters—t-u-l-i-p.

Second, you non-negotiably claim ‘the "world" of John 3:16 is absolutely a reference to the elect from all people groups on planet earth through history.” Care to document that with a Greek lexicon? Dictionary?  Other credible language tool?  We’re all ears here, Eman. Show me to be the theological fool you apparently think I am and document your claim from reputable scholarly sources. I’ll post it as an original post if you can muster scholarly linguistic support for your claim. If you cannot, it’s obvious we may reasonably assume you’re making non-biblical, theological assertions without the faintest bit of scholarly support.

At least the Jehovah's Witnesses quote some scholarly support for their contention on John 1 and the eternal LOGOS (they obviously fail in their attempt to solicit sufficient scholarly sources to establish their case but they attempt nonetheless). But you just pull a rabbit out of the hat and unequivocally claim ‘the "world" of John 3:16 is absolutely a reference to the elect from all people groups on planet earth through history.' So, educate us, Eman. Please educate us poor “Arminians” about the textual meaning of KOSMOS in John 3:16.

Third, you claim even more emphatically that not only is world in J316 “absolutely a reference to the elect” you further declare it to be “impossible to reconcile the Word of God together through [my] Arminian interpretation.” Really? Tell this to D.A. Carson, E. Hulse, J.C. Ryle, and John Calvin just to name a few who embrace the term world in its textual, lexical sense precisely as do I. Are they Arminian interpreters too?

Fourth, you claim “Romans 8:28-30 speaks of glorified believers as ONLY those who have been justified.” Yes, and what exactly does this have to say about Jesus in J316 when He said God so loved the world?  You’re in Paul referring to believers and I’m in John referencing the world. And, this is supposed to be Calvinist hermeneutics? No thanks, Eman. I’d rather stick with the Arminians if that’s what Carson, Hulse, Ryle and Calvin are.

Fifth, you claim by way of a hypothetical syllogism “If Jesus loved all people in the same way - we have some serious questions to ask” and go on to cite people in hell, Pharaoh, Esau being hated, and concluding your sermonette with an exhortation: “Deal with the Scriptures rather than running to commentaries to prove your point.”

In response, your hypothetical remark appears to assume Jesus did not love all people in the same way. Argumentative to the core, I’d say. Not only is the onus yours to demonstrate that a so-called dichotomy in God’s love exists and demonstrate it from Scripture not theological assertion, you seem to assume no serious questions would follow if you manage to make your case.

Even so, the truth is, if you managed to make your case from Scripture not raw theological assertion, for my part, it really wouldn't matter about the difficult questions it raised, be it qualitative or quantitative. At that point I’m kind of a deontological interpreter rather than a teleological interpreter. Whether that makes me more of an Arminian interpreter I've not really considered just to be honest. What the hey; call me an Arminian!—an Arminian interpreter right along with Carson, Hulse, Ryle, and poor, poor old Calvin.

Finally, you rightly charge not only me but us all to deal with the Scriptures rather than running to commentaries to prove our point.

Granted.

We can begin with the Apostle John’s Gospel, third chapter, and sixteenth verse: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son…” Hold it right there! The text says, God loved the world….world…What does the term “world” mean? Let’s exegete that term and see what it literally means. Care to weigh in on the Greek understanding of the biblical term world?

   

[Scott Shaver]

Imam:

That method of interpretation may fly well with your fellow mullahs and at their conferences. It will go over like a lead balloon in here where "Arminians" hold a much higher regard for the infallibility of Scripture.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

Sorry for droning on. Yes I didn't disagree with you on kosmos. Actually I was asking a tangential question related to the verse. Should have stayed on topic. Maybe another time.

Reling Elder Les

[Les Prouty]

Oops. Ruling Elder Les.

[Patrick]

Eman said, "In Matthew 1:21 Jesus is said to be coming to earth through the womb of Mary to "save His people from their sins."

In context, it would be that Jesus came to save the people of Israel. I guess the Calvinistic interpretation of this changes Israel to the elect from a reformed understanding. I would rather take the interpretation of Paul who says the gentiles are grafted in together with Israel in Romans 11:17.

"If Jesus loved all people in the same way - we have some serious questions to ask about the following:"

Jesus lamented over Israel in Matthew 23:37-39. He must have cared about the people perishing in Jerusalem to desire to gather them, but they would not.

[Scott Shaver]

Les:

You've obviously been bouncing from site to site so much that you've forgotten to check your spelling but I prefer to with the first title you ascribed to yourself "Reling Elder Les".

Reling is German for "rail". Verb meaning to "complain or harshly criticize, also used similarly with word "wail"

Have it your way. "Elder Rail" it is :^)

[Les Prouty]

Scott,

Well I'm not sure what sites you're referring to where the name fits. "Complain and harshly criticize" and/or "wail?" Perhaps you've been reading what others have said about my comments on other sites.

And thanks. I think I will have it my way, as Ruling Elder, unless of course someone who comments here often decides to give me back my nickname Skippy. :)

Les

[Scott Shaver]

Can't help you with that one rail, you would have to speak to another figment of Pete's imagination :)

[Lydia]

Hey Les, someone pointed me to daily bleat comments. Nice going encouraging Joshua Breland. Glad to know presbyterian ruling elders have the best "spiritual" interests of young men in their hearts. Was how Joshua handled all that really the best thing for him? Where ARE the true elders today?

Sheesh! And you wonder why you are not trusted in certain circles.

[Jim G.]

Hi Les,

Have you thought any more about the "in Christ" question? I see time has allowed you to respond to some other folks. I'll ask it again, is there any sense in which the non-elect are "in Christ" at all, and if so, what sense are they in him?

Jim G.

[Les Prouty]

Hi Jim G.

I did respond above thusly: "I'll be happy (as time allows) to respond to your view of the "in Christ" question."

Les

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

Glad "someone" is keeping up with my commens elsewhere. My where do they get the time?

Encouraging Josh. Hmmm. Is that a bad thing to do? Actually here's what I said (knowing you have led us off topic a bit):

"Josh, wow! It is obvious that he threatened you...and not in a debate sort of way. I pray that you and the others who have risked so much will be able to move on from this fiasco that has become LC and find much fruit in ministry in SB life. And that God will richly bless you and your wife when you get to see this little one in a few weeks. SDG!"

No regrets on that comment. "Was how Joshua handled all that really the best thing for him?" Not sure. I was speaking to one aspect of that LC business. I suspect there are ways he could have handled things better. It's rare that one doesn't look back on difficult times and have some regrets. But, off topic. Sorry.

"Sheesh! And you wonder why you are not trusted in certain circles." No, don't wonder at all. I'm fairly certain there are some of these C/NC circles where I'm not trusted. And I'm pretty sure that's the same for you.

Ruling Elder Les

[Scott Shaver]

Rail loves to see himself in print and that in the language of Zion regardless of the company he keeps or the behavior he condones. It's a narcissistic kind of thing like Miller over at Pravda.

Let him keep posting this stuff and remember it. Think I'll refrain from further comment on the virtue of his graciousness to Breland and company until a more full and less one-sided picture of the Louisiana story is revealed.

An old sailor told me one time that "rats are the first to leave a sinking ship."

[Scott Shaver]

Pete:
Got any more dead Calvinists who might be able to help us out with 3:16?

[Les Prouty]

Scott,

You yesterday, "I'm sorry for having misidentified you as a SBC Calvinist. Presbyterians in my experience have been much easier to talk with about these matters. Look forward to talking with you more later."

What's changed brother? And brother, where did you obtain this ability to judge my motives )"Rail loves to see himself in print and that in the language of Zion regardless of the company he keeps or the behavior he condones. It's a narcissistic kind of thing like Miller over at Pravda?")

And, "until a more full and less one-sided picture of the Louisiana story is revealed," Well an incomplete picture of all things LC certainly hasn't stopped a whole bunch of people on both sides of the aisle from commenting about it.

Ruling Elder Les

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

In fact, I do. I'll put another up next week...

[Scott Shaver]

Rail:

One last response to you and I'm done until we can get back to the subject of the thread.

"What has changed?". My mind. Especially about you fitting into a category of Presbyterians "easy to talk to" heretofore referenced by me.

As to where I obtained my ability to make personal judgments about your motives up to this point? ...observation.

[Les Prouty]

Scott,

"One last response to you and I'm done until we can get back to the subject of the thread."

I'll be happy to get back to the subject of the post if I see something else calling ut to me for a comment.

"As to where I obtained my ability to make personal judgments about your motives up to this point? ...observation."

You should market that brother. So far I've only heard of and known One who can do that.

Ruling Elder Les

[Lydia]

"Glad "someone" is keeping up with my commens elsewhere. My where do they get the time?"

Probably the same place you found it to post? Not sure it was "keeping up" with you, Les. More like "came across it" while "keeping up" with the LU situation.

So you really do think Joshua was "threatened"? As in how? Physically? Hmmm. Perhaps LU could respond that Joshua "threatened" to burn LU down? Perhaps it would have been more "elderish" to suggest he tone it down and stop the esculation and manufacturing drama?

[peter lumpkins]

Though this is not the thread where this should be discussed, one who listens to the conversation and comes away thinking "threat" surely is not taking the words of the conversation seriously. I know what a "threat" is. Believe me. And that ain't no threat--at least so far as the words themselves are concerned. One could say it was brassy...perhaps out of character from administrative faculty, etc but a "threat"? Hardly.

What I find interesting about Les is, he appears to care not an iota that Breland secretly recorded the conversation and publicly posted it, and that, after assuring Smith he was not in the business of posting private conversations! Downright shady and underhanded. Nope. Les logs on and wants to encourage Joshua to hang tough during all the persecution he's gone through.

I'm being told a whopper of a story is breaking very, very soon in a major paper that may blow some socks off about the LC fiasco, and perhaps offer a bit of vindication. We'll see...

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

I agree this is not the place. Anyway, definitions are important as Lydia is wont to say.

Threat by Webster: 'an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage."

Now I don't think for a minute that the threat was to inflict evil (whatever that means from Webster) or injury (bodily). I heard a threat to cause damage to Joshua as an administrative head can certainly do to a student. You may not want to see it as a threat. But clearly it was and any unbiased person should be able to see that.

As to me appearing "to care not an iota that Breland secretly recorded the conversation and publicly posted it, and that, after assuring Smith he was not in the business of posting private conversations!" Well appearances can be deceiving when one makes assumptions about what one hasn't spoken about. My silence to date about the propiety of the secret recording cannot tell you or anyone else what my opinion is about the recording event. I don't speak to everything I know about, as neither do you.

Les

[peter lumpkins]

Well, Les, Smith said 3 times he was coming after Breland. On the first two, he made no commentary. On the last one he did. He said, "I'm coming after you and...and we're going to have a discussion." Why you'd not think he meant that also in the other two makes little sense. I don't know Smith from Adam. But I do know there's no need at all to make it into a threat, and do so against at least a partial explanation of what he meant offered in the third statement. So, no, it most clearly was not a threat.

And your statement on the secret recording is nothing more than a pathetic sidestep. "My silence to date about the propiety [sic] of the secret recording"... Yes, and undoubtedly you'll remain silent, Les (they're your buds after all). But again, that's been your style since you showed up here. You come here and freely play and go elsewhere popping off about us here, many times in a most insulting way. And, please don't try to deny this, for I'll just post the links which show the duplicity you routinely display. Links like this---http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/captured_screen_shots/mark%20lamprect%20and%20les%20prouty.JPG

[Les Prouty]

Well Peter, "I'll come after you" is a threat, not mitigated by "We're going to have a discussion." A threat it was. Makes perfect sense to most people.

"And your statement on the secret recording is nothing more than a pathetic sidestep." Well of course it is Peter to you. Call it what you will brother.

"Yes, and undoubtedly you'll remain silent, Les (they're your buds after all)." Perhaps I will remain silent. Neither here nor there. And my buds? Ha ha.

"You come here and freely play and go elsewhere popping off about us here, many times in a most insulting way."

Insulting? Brother my remarks are insulting? Check a certain regular commenter here to see examples of insulting people.

And if your first link to my words "Good tweet" is any indication of my duplicity, then search, copy, link and paste away. Knock yourself out. Then compare my comments elswhere to your regular commenter here and see which is insulting.