[Nate]

In the Limited Atonement / Unconditional Election thread, I stated the following:

Originally Posted by Nate

Furthermore, if we can simply explain away the usage of "all men" or "everyone" by saying that it can't possibly mean what it says because that would mean that God will either save everyone or prove not to be omnipotent, then we must explain away passages such as John 3:16 as well, and say that God doesn't really love the world (as the Scriptures say), but that He only loves the elect.

To which Aaron Adams replied with the following:

Originally Posted by Aaron Adams

Yes: John 3:16 uses the word "world" to refer to the Elect.

I am assuming that his "yes" was in response to my statement that "we must ... say that God doesn't really love the world, but that He only loves the elect." Am I correct in this assessment of your statement, Aaron? The logical conclusion from that, then, is that Jesus Christ's death was not for the world at all, but only for the elect. Am I correct in this train of thought?

If so, I present the following Scriptures (all from NASB) and ask that anyone interested explain how these Scriptures show anything but that God loves the world and that Christ's death was for the world.

This is the Word of God:

John 1:29
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 3:16-17
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

John 4:41-42
Many more believed because of His word; and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world."

John 6:32-33
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."

John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.

John 12:46-48
I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Romans 5:17-19
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

1 Timothy 4:9-10
It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Titus 2:11-14
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

1 John 2:1-2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:14
We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

I ask again; how, in light of the Word of God presented here, can you say that God does not love the world / all men and did not die for the world / all men? Regardless of what it means for our soteriology, the simple fact of the matter is that Scripture seems to be ridiculously clear concerning this issue.

In His love,
Nate

[BillSPrestonEsq]

yes, and also in 1 John 2 where you quoted the elect are in view, but in contrast to the whole world whom God loves.

[ChaletPol]

Originally Posted by Nate

I ask again; how, in light of the Word of God presented here, can you say that God does not love the world / all men and did not die for the world / all men? Regardless of what it means for our soteriology, the simple fact of the matter is that Scripture seems to be ridiculously clear concerning this issue.

I do not presently have time to analyze the passages from which the verses you have presented come. I will endeavor to do so eventually, but in the meantime, I wanted to emphasize something: "Regardless of what it means for our soteriology..." I contend that, if your perspective on the meaning of "world" and "all" in these verses is correct, you must be prepared to eat your own words. In the end, there are only a handful of options available:

1. Your understanding of kosmoß/kosmos and paß/pas is correct, in which case...
   1. We must either change our understanding of what Christ did at the cross, for if His atonement was for the world in the broad sense that you mean, we must deny its total sufficiency or change the meaning of atonement from actually being substitutionary to possibly being substitutionary (and the texts themselves, in some cases, militate against both of these alternatives), or
   2. We must embrace universalism.
2. Aaron's and my interpretation of kosmoß/kosmos and paß/pas is correct, in which case
   1. Christ's atonement remains a sufficient and definite atonement, rather than insufficient or a merely possible one, and
   2. There is no trouble with universalism, giving some an imaginary excuse to not preach the gospel by crying "Peace, peace!" when there really is judgment awaiting. Nevertheless, there admittedly remains trouble with hyper-Calvinism, giving some an imaginary excuse to not preach the gospel by crying "Predestination, predestination!" when there really is Jesus awaiting.

[mymindhurts]

Originally Posted by ChaletPol

I do not presently have time to analyze the passages from which the verses you have presented come. I will endeavor to do so eventually, but in the meantime, I wanted to emphasize something: "Regardless of what it means for our soteriology..." I contend that, if your perspective on the meaning of "world" and "all" in these verses is correct, you must be prepared to eat your own words. In the end, there are only a handful of options available:

1. Your understanding of kosmoß/kosmos and paß/pas is correct, in which case...
   1. We must either change our understanding of what Christ did at the cross, for if His atonement was for the world in the broad sense that you mean, we must deny its total sufficiency or change the meaning of atonement from actually being substitutionary to possibly being substitutionary (and the texts themselves, in some cases, militate against both of these alternatives), or
   2. We must embrace universalism.
2. Aaron's and my interpretation of kosmoß/kosmos and paß/pas is correct, in which case
   1. Christ's atonement remains a sufficient and definite atonement, rather than insufficient or a merely possible one, and
   2. There is no trouble with universalism, giving some an imaginary excuse to not preach the gospel by crying "Peace, peace!" when there really is judgment awaiting. Nevertheless, there admittedly remains trouble with hyper-Calvinism, giving some an imaginary excuse to not preach the gospel by crying "Predestination, predestination!" when there really is Jesus awaiting.

Option 3: All means all, and sufficient means sufficient, but men still have the ability to reject God's completely sufficient gift.

The fact that man can reject something sufficient for their salvation in NO way contradicts it's sufficiency. Neither does it contradict God's sovereignty, as it is THROUGH God's sovereignty (as I believe LightKnight said elsewhere) that man is given this ability to choose or reject his Creator.

And there you have it--an explanation that avoids Universalism, uses the obvious meaning of the word "all", "world" and "sufficient", and yet allows for God's sovereignty

[ChaletPol]

Originally Posted by mymindhurts

The fact that man can reject something sufficient for their salvation in NO way contradicts it's sufficiency.

If Christ's atonement is sufficient and efficient for someone's justification, then that person is justified, plain and simple. If Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, then it is all one needs for justification. If Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, then one's response to it does not determine (in a causal sense) whether or not one is justified. If Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, then all one needs is Christ's atonement to be justified. Hence, if Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, and one actually has Christ's atonement applied to one's self (or, in other words, Christ's atonement is efficacious/efficient/effective/in effect), one is saved.

1. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does not contradict its sufficiency if the thing is efficient and the person is saved.
2. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does not contradict its sufficiency if the thing is not efficient and the person is not saved.
3. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does not contradict its sufficiency if the thing is not efficient and the person is saved.
4. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does contradict its sufficiency if the thing is efficient and the person is not saved.

If you don't believe me, here's a truth table.

B----------C----------A----------(B -> C) -> A
T----------T----------T----------T
T----------T----------F----------F
T----------F----------T----------T
T----------F----------F----------T
F----------T----------T----------T
F----------T----------F----------F
F----------F----------T----------T
F----------F----------F----------F
A = Sufficiency
B = Efficiency
C = Justification

[joshaber]

1 John 2:1-2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

We are told that Jesus is the propitiation (just payment) for the whole world. I don't see a conditional, "as long they as they accept it" clause there.

[mymindhurts]

Originally Posted by ChaletPol

If Christ's atonement is sufficient and efficient for someone's justification, then that person is justified, plain and simple. If Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, then it is all one needs for justification. If Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, then one's response to it does not determine (in a causal sense) whether or not one is justified. If Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, then all one needs is Christ's atonement to be justified. Hence, if Christ's atonement is totally sufficient for justification, and one actually has Christ's atonement applied to one's self (or, in other words, Christ's atonement is efficacious/efficient/effective/in effect), one is saved.

1. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does not contradict its sufficiency if the thing is efficient and the person is saved.
2. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does not contradict its sufficiency if the thing is not efficient and the person is not saved.
3. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does not contradict its sufficiency if the thing is not efficient and the person is saved.
4. The fact that one can reject something sufficient for one's salvation does contradict its sufficiency if the thing is efficient and the person is not saved.

If you don't believe me, here's a truth table.

B----------C----------A----------(B -> C) -> A
T----------T----------T----------T
T----------T----------F----------F
T----------F----------T----------T
T----------F----------F----------T
F----------T----------T----------T
F----------T----------F----------F
F----------F----------T----------T
F----------F----------F----------F
A = Sufficiency
B = Efficiency
C = Justification

Where does the "efficient" part come in? Could you define "efficient" as you're using it, and explain WHY you're using it?

[ChaletPol]

Originally Posted by mymindhurts

Could you define "efficient" as you're using it, and explain WHY you're using it?

"Efficient," or, alternatively, "efficacious," "in effect," "effective," or "effectual" all have to do with a thing actually doing what it is supposed to do or designed to do. Hence, to say that Christ's atonement is "efficient" for someone is to say that Christ actually atoned for the person, or to say that Christ's atonement is "in effect" for that person.
I am using it because the text does not speak of a ransom that could be paid by Christ or a propitiation for sins that could be made by Christ, but of a ransom actually paid by Christ and a propitiation actually made by Christ. In other words, the text is speaking in terms of efficacy, not sufficiency. Hence, if Nate and Bill are right about the interpretation of kosmoß/kosmos and paß/pas, universalism must be true unless you deny the total sufficiency of Christ's atonement for justification.

[mymindhurts]

Originally Posted by ChaletPol

"Efficient," or, alternatively, "efficacious," "in effect," "effective," or "effectual" all have to do with a thing actually doing what it is supposed to do or designed to do. Hence, to say that Christ's atonement is "efficient" for someone is to say that Christ actually atoned for the person, or to say that Christ's atonement is "in effect" for that person.
I am using it because the text does not speak of a ransom that could be paid by Christ or a propitiation for sins that could be made by Christ, but of a ransom actually paid by Christ and a propitiation actually made by Christ. In other words, the text is speaking in terms of efficacy, not sufficiency. Hence, if Nate and Bill are right about the interpretation of kosmoß/kosmos and paß/pas, universalism must be true unless you deny the total sufficiency of Christ's atonement for justification.

I don't quite see the logic here. If someone pays my debt, it's paid. But if I refuse to acccept that payment of my debt, I'm still free to pay my own debt, or suffer the consequences.

By the very fact that God made us able to willingly choose Him, He also allowed for the possibility that we can willingly reject Him--and His payment of our debt. That doesn't make it any less efficient or sufficient. It just means we're pretty stupid for insisting on taking the consequences that have already been taken for us.

[ChaletPol]

Originally Posted by mymindhurts

If someone pays my debt, it's paid. But if I refuse to acccept that payment of my debt, I'm still free to pay my own debt, or suffer the consequences.

You're not making sense. If someone pays your debt to someone else, that debt is paid, and you can't refuse to accept it because you aren't the one who would be accepting it in the first place: it's paid to someone else. If He paid it, it's paid. End of story.

Originally Posted by mymindhurts

...we can willingly reject Him--and His payment of our debt. That doesn't make it any less efficient or sufficient.

Yes. Yes it does. If Christ paid the debt, His payment is efficient. If His payment is efficient, but we still end up paying something, then His payment is insufficient. If His payment is totally sufficient, then, if you have a debt remaining, His payment must not have been efficient. This argument from illustration is getting more and more ridiculous, I think...
Okay, look, say you have a debt to your bank. Say I pay your bank. My payment is efficient for your account because the funds actually go to your account for the purpose of paying off your debt. If your debt remains, it was because my payment was insufficient to pay your debt. What is the "debt" in question? Perfect obedience. Did Christ pay this debt or did He not? Scripture speaks of His atonement as something definite, not merely possible. Christ actually paid the debt. If He did this for the whole "world," as you are understanding it, then we have universalism.
You say that we can willingly reject Him, and that, if we do, we must pay our own debt. Basically, this amounts to another debt owed that, if we fail to pay it, will keep the original debt from being paid. In other words, you are advocating justification by our works: by paying our own debts.
In a sense, I can even agree with you on this to some degree. We are required to have faith, and have it to the end, but this is something that is invincibly granted to us. So long as you mean that, I can agree with you, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, given what you have said here and elsewhere about human freedom.

Originally Posted by mymindhurts

It just means we're pretty stupid for insisting on taking the consequences that have already been taken for us.

It means that God is unjust for requiring me to pay what has already been paid.

[Nate]

What is wrong with saying that Christ's death was fully sufficient, but efficient only to those who believe?

[Nate]

By the way... if my "understanding of kosmos" is correct in even one of these passages, then I'd say you have a serious problem. Do you honestly mean to tell me that in every single one of these passages (including others that I'm sure I have not listed), the words kosmos and pas do not refer to all men / the world (meaning all mankind)??? The lexicon you linked to certainly listed that as a possible definition of both words. If that definition is not present here in any of these Scriptures, would you mind pointing to a place where it is present?

In His love,
Nate

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by Nate

What is wrong with saying that Christ's death was fully sufficient, but efficient only to those who believe?

There is nothing wrong with it. It is not a matter of sufficientcy but a matter of intent. If God intended for the death of Christ to satisfy the justice of God for the whole world it would have. His intention is what sets the limits. Now to the original question of does God love the world? I do not believe He does. If He did He would save the world. His love is backed by His power, wisdom,knowledge and sovereignty. If He wants the world to be saved it would be. Also the Scriptures plainly say He doesn't love some. Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

[Nate]

Last I checked, we are all considered "workers of iniquity" under the Calvinistic worldview.

[mlqurgw]

Originally Posted by Nate

Last I checked, we are all considered "workers of iniquity" under the Calvinistic worldview.

Certainly we are in the sense of total depravity. But God has always dealt with His elect as justfied. Just as we are said to be glorified in Rom. 8:30. We have not been actually glorified but God deals with us as if we were.