“How in the world John 3:16 can be isogeted [sic] as a proof-text for limited atonement is beyond the pale of understanding. I'm certain Nicodemus wasn't blown away by the new found thought that God has narrowed to doors to salvation. What's so revolutionary about that? Nicodemus already believed that!
(v15) "...that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life"
(v16) "... that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"
(v17) "...to save the world through him"
(v18) "...whoever believes in him is not condemned"
(v20) "...whoever lives by the truth comes into the light"
Nicodemus already had a theology of limited atonement and particular redemption. I seriously doubt Jesus was bolstering what Nicodemus already knew!”
Posted by Dennis Laing at 08:28 AM”
This is a funny example of how someone is unable to connect his own dots. Dennis appears to base his interpretation on the pronoun (“whoever,” “everyone”) rather than the verb (“believe”).
But the pronoun doesn’t stand alone. The text doesn’t say that everyone will be saved, or everyone will have eternal life.
Rather, the pronoun is modified by the verb.
Whoever “believes” in Christ or “lives by the truth.”
So then, on the face of it, Jn 3:16, along with its surrounding context, says the atonement is for believers. Christ died for all those, and only those, who exercise faith in him. It is limited to that particular subset of humanity.
That’s the inference we would draw by confining ourselves to the very data that Dennis isolates to prove unlimited atonement.
Short and sweet - good answer Steve. I think people see that word, "whoever," and a knee-jerk reaction takes place. Much like "all" in other atonement texts. Is this a record for Steve's brevity?
ReplyDeleteI'm so proud of myself. I connected the dots as I was reading Dennis' post. His argument brought to mind a vision of someone trying to kill mosquitos with a shotgun. All he had to do is what you did in looking at the exegesis. Good post Steve.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteBut doesn't "world" still ultimately mean "elect"? It may especially describe the elect as not being limited to a particular nation, but it nonetheless has reference only to the elect even in your own definition, since those who believe (from all nations) are the elect.
Just to add to and affirm the original post - the pronoun in English (according to the OED) "offers a generalized or indefinite sense to communicate a measure of uncertainty." The variable use of whosoever often causes confusion. What I see people do with this (often) is to herald what they believe is an expression of uncertainty simply because of the choice of word "whosoever." The expression pas ho pisteuon can be translated as all the believing ones (present active participle), and this is why the YLT translates it as - everyone who believes - which is a bit more direct. By the time that we get to this expression it is very clear that the Lord's focus is upon believers (whom He will effectually bring to saving faith). Overall, for Nicodemus, it was a profound moment to learn that God's grace was not only going to be extended to believers in Israel (Moses & brazen serpent), but to believers throughout the world (through Christ & the cross). The message of John 3 is both particular and extensive...
ReplyDeleteHi James,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful observations.
i) My immediate purpose was simply to respond to Dennis on his own grounds.
ii) Obviously there is more to Jn 3:16 than the Calvinist/Arminian debate.
Predestination is not the focus of the verse.
iii) Jn 3:16 is not a prooftext for predestination.
iv) It would be a mistake for a Calvinist to come to Jn 3:16 with a Reformed agenda.
The Bible teaches predestination, and it never teaches against predestination, but it doesn’t teach predestination all the time.
v) Obviously the word “cosmos” doesn’t mean the elect, in the sense of being a synonym for the elect, the way ebony is a synonym for black.
The question is whether the verse refers to the elect.
vi) I do think the pronoun is important. There is a reason John is using a universal quantifier. This verse issues an implicit invitation or encouragement.
vii) But, we would both agree that the verb is also important. To whom is the verse a standing invitation? To those who would put their faith in Christ for salvation.
viii) As Christians we take this for granted. But it wasn’t self-evident to everyone in Jesus’ time that believing in a Jewish Messiah was the way to be saved, or that a Jewish Messiah was a Savior to anyone who would turn to him and faith and repentance.
This was a lesson for Jews and Gentiles alike. Not all Jews believed in Jesus. Not all Jews who believed in Jesus also assumed that Jesus was the Savior of the Gentiles as well. And Gentiles, left to their own devices, would have no reason to suppose that salvation lay in a little Jewish sect.
ix) This is what you’re saying. This is the focus of the verse. And it should not be submerged by Calvinist/Arminian debates.
x) As to the meaning of the word “kosmos,” in Johannine usage this has an ethical connotation. It denotes the moral and spiritual character of the lost. Here I agree with Andrew Lincoln’s interpretation, which I quote elsewhere:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/creepy-stuff.html
xi) There is also a predestinarian element in the larger context. The promise is to all prospective believers, but what makes one a believer is the prior action of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-8).
But doesn't "world" still ultimately mean "elect"? It may especially describe the elect as not being limited to a particular nation, but it nonetheless has reference only to the elect even in your own definition, since those who believe (from all nations) are the elect.
ReplyDeleteNot at all. In the OT, God loved the nation of Israel. When the kingdom was divided, He still proclaimed He loved the whole nation, but for reasons sufficient to Himself, He left one kingdom in its apostasy and the other He returned to the kingdom. Read Hosea 1 very carefully, and you'll see that God says this very thing. He will destroy the one and, even though the other deserves it, will redeem the other.
In Ezra and Nehemiah they return. Who returns? Some Levites, Judah, and Benjamin with a few of "indeterminate origin." So, "the elect" of Israel would be equivalent to these at the Restoration, for they returned to the covenant land. Yet God still said He loved the nation, and He still restored the whole nation, even though only this subset was actually returned to the land. In fact, to extend this metaphor further, the implication is that the Gentile nations, in point of fact, take up this vacancy in the covenant people by way of election in the NT. In this way, God loves the world. In this way, in the end, God will save the world. The world is the object of His general affection, the elect (all the ones believing) are the object of His covenant affection. Through redeeming the covenant people, God saves the world (composed of both Jews and Gentiles), the object of His affection. Arminians take this text too far; Calvinists sometimes have restricted it so it doesn't say enough.