It is my contention that John 3:16 has been forever mistranslated....

[Kristos]

is that no to universalism as well ?

depends on your definition I suppose.

 

[cygnusx1]

depends on your definition I suppose.

universalism = every person gets saved and goes to heaven

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes there are logical as well as theological reasons why Arminian proof texting is refuted ;

THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:4. There is a twofold theological problem in this verse: the first aspect of the problem pertains to the will of God: the second aspect of the problem pertains to the universal term "all" as it relates to the salvation of men (i.e., the extent of the atonement). Does God desire to save all mankind absolutely; that is, each and every individual? Or does God desire to save all mankind relatively; that is, all men without distinction of race, nationality, or social position, not all men without exception? Within Protestantism there are three basic theological interpretations of this verse: the Arminian, the modified or four-point Calvinist and the historic or five-point Calvinist interpretations.

I. THE ARMINIAN INTERPRETATION
A. "Will" [thelo]. God wants (desires) all men without exception to be saved. However in the case of some His will is resisted through obstinate unbelief because man has a free will and God will not force His will upon man. If he did, man would not be free; he would be a robot. Therefore, God only elects those who He foresees will choose Him in time; that is, when they hear and respond to the gospel. Man can respond to the gospel because he has a free will — free to choose good or evil because Christ merited this grace or ability for him and all mankind without exception when He died upon the cross. Consequently, no one can blame God for dying in unbelief and being condemned to hell. The responsibility lies solely with man: he could have chosen to be saved if he had so desired to choose Christ.
B. Objections

1. Logical: If God wants (desires) all men to be saved absolutely; that is without exception, then why does He not save them since none "of the inhabitants of the earth . . . can stay His hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou'" (Dan. 4:35)?
2. Theological: God's will as desire [thelo] proceeds from His inclination (nature), God's will as decree [boulomai] is based upon His counsel and deliberation. (in reference to salvation, His counsel and deliberation took place in "eternity past" between the triune Godhead in the covenant or counsel of redemption.) Can God decree something contrary to His inclination or nature? No, humanly speaking, God chooses (i.e., decrees) in harmony with His Holy nature. And is not true that what God's soul "desireth [thelo], even that He doeth" (Job 23:13)? In summary, if God desires [thelo] to save all mankind absolutely, then each and every individual will be saved, for what He desires to do He does. The Arminian interpretation, therefore, says too much.. It leads to universal salvation which is expressly contrary to Scripture and the doctrine of eternal punishment. Also, the Arminian concept of God's foreknowledge (which is understood to mean foresight) limits God and the certainty that His plan of salvation will be accomplished because His will (according to Arminianism) can be frustrated by obstinate unbelief. This negates the clearly taught attribute of God which makes Him God, "omnipotence", Rev. 19:6
3. Biblical: The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted" (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles).
​

C. Conclusion: The Arminian interpretation is not logical or theological or biblical. The expression "all men," as used here, means all men without distinction, men from every rank and class, tribe and nation (cf. Rev. 5:9). The term "all men" does NOT refer to all men without exception. The term is to be understood relatively. Why? Because there can be no metaphysical disjunction in God's will as desiring and His will as decreeing. Both aspects of His will are in perfect harmony with each other.

Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 2:4

 

[Kristos]

universalism = every person gets saved and goes to heaven

I hope so.

 

[cygnusx1]

I hope so.

not what I asked , do you believe in universalism ?

 

[Epiphoskei]

My point was why not ask a Greek expert on Greek language.

Do you really want to take a census of how many of us know how much Greek here?

I have six semesters myself, and you don't need more than two to realize Spurgeon is correct here. (as an aside, we really need to give him a nickname, or it could get dicey telling the difference between who's quoting the pastor and who's quoting the poster. But regardless...)

οὕτω (like this)
γὰρ (for)
ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς (God loved)
τὸν κόσμον (the world),
ὥστε (that)
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ (his only son)
ἔδωκεν (he gave),
ἵνα (so that)
πᾶς (all)
ὁ πιστεύων (the people who believe)
ἰς αὐτὸν (in him)
μὴ ἀπόληται, (will not perish)
ἀλλ᾿ (but)
ἔχῃ (have)
ζωὴν (life)
αἰώνιον (eternal)

My only disagreement is that I don't believe the translation we find in modern Bibles is wrong, I believe the modern English reader isn't trained to read his own language from 400 years ago. The King James was eloquent, and no one wants to be known as the guy who translated an ugly translation. Thus, all of our translations, no matter how they protest that they've been taken from the original texts, have the indelible mark of the KJV left on them. In Ye Earlie Moderne English, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him might not perish" does in fact mean "God loved the world like this: He gave his only son so all believers won't perish." Modern men simply have trouble understanding slightly more antiquarian uses of "so" "whosoever" and "might."

 

[cygnusx1]

Do you really want to take a census of how many of us know how much Greek here?

I have six semesters myself, and you don't need more than two to realize Spurgeon is correct here. (as an aside, we really need to give him a nickname, or it could get dicey telling the difference between who's quoting the pastor and who's quoting the poster. But regardless...)

οὕτω (like this)
γὰρ (for)
ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς (God loved)
τὸν κόσμον (the world),
ὥστε (that)
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ (his only son)
ἔδωκεν (he gave),
ἵνα (so that)
πᾶς (all)
ὁ πιστεύων (the people who believe)
ἰς αὐτὸν (in him)
μὴ ἀπόληται, (will not perish)
ἀλλ᾿ (but)
ἔχῃ (have)
ζωὴν (life)
αἰώνιον (eternal)

My only disagreement is that I don't believe the translation we find in modern Bibles is wrong, I believe the modern English reader isn't trained to read his own language from 400 years ago. The King James was eloquent, and no one wants to be known as the guy who translated an ugly translation. Thus, all of our translations, no matter how they protest that they've been taken from the original texts, have the indelible mark of the KJV left on them. In Ye Earlie Moderne English, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him might not perish" does in fact mean "God loved the world like this: He gave his only son so all believers won't perish." Modern men simply have trouble understanding slightly more antiquarian uses of "so" "whosoever" and "might."

Good post bro !

I like the Olde English but I cannot read my Wycliffe NT very well .

I love the sound of the KJV and use it the most.

Yes , that word "might" used to mean "in order that" , it has changed over time to "maybe" .

And "world" was seen as an ethnic tribal thing , and even a moral entity , sadly now it has come to mean "every person ".

 

[Tzaousios]

My point was why not ask a Greek expert on Greek language.

Okay, I have been reading Greek at the graduate level steadily for six years now. Before that, I did many reading courses at the undergraduate level, too.

Still, though, I want to know your answer to my question. Your original assertion was not just about knowledge of Greek, but about Eastern Orthodox as well.

 

[Epiphoskei]

And "world" was seen as an ethnic tribal thing , and even a moral entity , sadly now it has come to mean "every person ".

I don't actually think it would make any difference in this verse. Let's cross out "world" and insert "every human being without exception," and we get "God loved every human being without exception like this: He gave his only son so that all believers will not perish."

I don't personally see that as more helpful to the Arminainish cause, because it doesn't expand the number of people for whom Christ died, nor does it do anything to potentialize a definite salvation.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Okay, I have been reading Greek at the graduate level steadily for six years now.

Oh, he's got me beat. I used to think I was kind of the big dog around here when it came to Greek.

 

[Tzaousios]

Oh, he's got me beat. I used to think I was kind of the big dog around here when it came to Greek.

The best advice that I ever received was start the languages early and stick with them. That is what I did with both Greek and Latin. It is very difficult, and my knowledge constantly gets rusty and needs refreshing, but it helped tremendously when it comes to reading and translating many things for research.

 

[Epiphoskei]

The best advice that I ever received was start the languages early and stick with them. That is what I did with both Greek and Latin. It is very difficult, and my knowledge constantly gets rusty and needs refreshing, but it helped tremendously when it comes to reading and translating many things for research.

Back in college (which may not have been huge, but by no means small) I only had two classmates in my 2nd year Greek class, and only one in my 3rd year. It was then that I became horrified over how little Greek people who intend to become pastors think they can get away with learning.

It's no wonder people take 3:16 as an Arminian prooftext. I've had pastors who won't even believe me when I point out that houtos means "in this manner," not "a whole lot" until I drag them over to the lexicon. Plus, that makes the connection to the prefigurement of the crucifixion referenced in 14-15 a lot clearer. You'd think people had never exposited this whole chapter, as opposed to just the verse before.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Maybe the reason why I've never had a problem with John 3:16 is that I was one of the few people back at school who read Shakespeare for pleasure (and 40 years later still do). And no translation matches the beauty of the KJV, although I tend to use the ESV for study.

 

[billybtennessee]

The verse tells us God loved the world such that His Son would come and die to save those who believe in Him. It is good news. The gospel leaves no one out, the offer is for all, 'whosoever will'. All are invited.

After His resurrection Jesus Christ told His followers to 'go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature'. Mark 16:15.

There is no doubt as to where (all the world), and to who (every creature), the Gospel is for (who), and is to be taken (where).

Mark 16:16, says 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This thread changes nothing, in regards to that. Nor any other one.

 

[eric89]

Have you seen the old post on Spurgeons sermon 1516 ?

 

[Charles Spurgeon]

The verse tells us God loved the world such that His Son would come and die to save those who believe in Him. It is good news. The gospel leaves no one out, the offer is for all, 'whosoever will'. All are invited.

After His resurrection Jesus Christ told His followers to 'go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature'. Mark 16:15.

There is no doubt as to where (all the world), and to who (every creature), the Gospel is for (who), and is to be taken (where).

Mark 16:16, says 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This thread changes nothing, in regards to that. Nor any other one.

Did you actually read what we all just said?

 

[Kristos]

not what I asked , do you believe in universalism ?

That wasn't an answer? You don't believe in hope?

 

[Epiphoskei]

The verse tells us God loved the world such that His Son would come and die to save those who believe in Him. It is good news. The gospel leaves no one out, the offer is for all, 'whosoever will'. All are invited.

After His resurrection Jesus Christ told His followers to 'go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature'. Mark 16:15.

There is no doubt as to where (all the world), and to who (every creature), the Gospel is for (who), and is to be taken (where).

Mark 16:16, says 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This thread changes nothing, in regards to that. Nor any other one.

We are not Hypercalvinists, we don't believe the gospel is not to be preached to every man every where. We do believe the atoning work of Christ was performed to actually save all believers, and is ineffectual towards those who will not believe.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I find it tragic that fellow Christians can be so aggressive in their responses. The thread starts with a point which anyone who claims to be an English speaker should be able to understand. It's followed by posts attacking individuals, presumably because they carry the label Calvinist. Clearly there is no open-mindedness, no attempt to debate and understand, and no real attempt to answer any point raised by anyone displaying the red and green logo. I've seen it in thread after thread, and yet most posters here would claim to love their enemies while attacking their fellows.

All I can do in my despair is pray for God to soften some hearts around here.

Of course that may not work because it'll interfere with your free wills...

 

[Epiphoskei]

And if so, so what?

If we take all men in the way the Arminianish take all men, this rarely gets you anywhere. I will admit, I have personally rarely been convinced of many of the ways Calvinists interpret "the world" and "all men," but mainly because it doesn't seem to make a shred of difference to the texts implications about how God accomplished the salvation of whom. Case in point, the verse this thread is about. What difference does it make if God loved all humans such that he saved all believers, or some humans such that he saved all believers? The substance of the atonement in the verse remains unchanged. Jesus' death saved all believers.

As to the verse Spurgeon is expositing, if God will have all men to be saved, but does not actually save all men, then such a verse merely expresses a sentiment that God has, but for whatever reason, chooses not to omnipotently cause to come to pass through the all powerful blood of Jesus with which he certainly could unilaterally save anyone he wanted.

Hence, when we begin discussing whom Christ actually did save, you can't make appeals to it. You've already written it off by saying that God, for whatever reason, chose not to satisfy those sentiments. Sentiments God didn't act upon are not germane to discussions about God's acts.