It's odd, no matter how many times I refuse this interpretation, and explain why and how, you still continue to force it on me and attack me as if I hold to it. I would love it if you would interact with my ideas rather than your own.

"(of which most of Christendom will agree"
It's an ad populum and not actually true either.

The only meaning of 'world' I have smuggled in came from a lexicon.

No, the text is self-explaining. God loves the world, died for the world, so that the whole world may be saved on the condition of their belief in Jesus.

You say that my simple reading (of which most of Christendom will agree) is an abuse of language. But what you fail (or rather refuse) to realize is that your redefinition of words in the text just to try and prop up your man-made theological system is not only an abuse of the text, but an abuse of God.

Please, let God out of the theological box you've painted Him into. Perhaps then, like Jonah, you will understand that God's love cannot be contained merely because we have a burning desire to feel "extra" special.

I object to your eisegesis. I object to your abuse of II Peter 3:9 as that requires it's own exegesis before you start claiming that the 'you' of that passage is someone other than who Peter was writing to. I object to you misunderstanding of Greek grammar and how a participle functions. I object to your misunderstanding of how English grammar functions. I object to your refusal to simply look at this single text and do the exegesis of this text before you do systematics. I object to your insertion of doctrine into my mouth. I object to your insertion of doctrine into the text. I object to your not addressing my question: where are you finding the term "whosoever will may?" I object to your ignoring the rest of the context of John 3 making Jesus speak gibberish ("For God sent not his Son into all men?") I object to your continual avoiding of the serious questions presented by your interpretation of this verse. I object to your calling God's purpose and choice "the divine lottery" as if God were no person. I object to your farce of a "diagram."

There is absolutely nothing to object to in this verse given by God to us. It tells us that God's purpose in sending His Son into this world was to save those who are believing, and that the reason the Father sent the Son was because He loved the world. In context: the Father didn't send the Son to judge the world, because the world was already judged (so many as do not believe), but to save the world.

If you care to look up the word 'κόσμος' in a Greek Lexicon you will learn that redefining 'κόσμος' as 'all men' or 'each person' isn't only contextually impossible, but also it's impossible because the word simply doesn't mean that. The 'Little Liddel" reads thus:

kosmos, ou, ho, (komew) order; kata kosmon or kosmw in order, duly; oudeni kosmw in no sort of order. 2. good order, good behaviour, decency. 3. a set form or order: of states, government. 4. the mode or fashion of a thing. II. an ornament, decoration, dress, raiment; plur. ornaments. 2. an honour, credit. III. the world or universe, from it's perfect arrangement, Lat. mundus.

Vine's Expository Dictionary states that "by metonymy" it can mean "the human race, mankind," but to extend this group to mean "each individual" is an abuse of language.

1. For God so loved the world
Establishes a premise, that God loves the world. κόσμον, kosmos, the same word mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:19 among many other places including John 1:29.

2. that he gave His only begotten Son
Christ died for the sins of all mankind, the "world" mentioned above, in an expression of God's love. Romans tells us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Since we we all sin and fall short of the Glory of God, that includes all men (Romans 3:23).

Further examples of God's love of the world being manifest in the death of Jesus for the sins for the world are evident in the passages: John 1:29, John 3:18, John 3:36, 1 John 4:9, 1 John 4:10

We also know that Jesus's death was meant for all men because God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) but that all should come to be saved, the how of which is answered in the next section…

3. that whosoever believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life
Whosoever is "all" in Greek so the verse is literally "all believers". Note that believers here is not a noun and as such does not connotate an elect group of people but rather "believes" is a verb (YLT reads: "every one who is believing"), an act of the will. The rest of the context of John 3 (as well as most of the book of John) further point out that belief is both required and expected. Some examples are John 11:25

Further, the act of believing is treated throughout Scripture as a laudable or damnable act committed by the person in question. For example Abraham believed "and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6, Galatians 3:6, Romans 4:3).

There's more, of course, some have spent whole lifetimes preaching on this one text alone since it is so rich in meaning and pregnant with real and attainable hope for all men. It is "the Gospel in a nutshell" as they say.

So tell me, what do you object to? What IS there to object to? Are you opposed to God's loving the world as Jonah was? Are you opposed to the generous (and supposedly wasteful) outpouring of God's love even on those who would go on to deny Him? Are you opposed to the radical notion that God loves all men and desires all men to be saved as opposed to an elite group of people who have won the divine lottery and as such are in the "in" crowd" Tell me, what exactly is there to object to in this simple self-explaining passage of Scripture?

Whatever you do I would genuinely like to know where I have reinterpreted this verse to "prop up" my "presupposed theological system." And also it would help if you told me what you think my "presupposed theological system" is.

I would also appreciate it if you could tell me why you do not address the words that I write but rather supply a theology that isn't mine and then attack me as holding that system. It is a curious method that doesn't lend well to your credibility.

"No, the simple fact is that John 3:16 does not need much exposition because it is stunningly simple. "
Exactly, so you don't have to add ideas like "…so that whosoever will may …" It is simply not in this text. Can you actually show that it is? I have searched dozens of translations, and the original Greek and cannot find it. It doesn't say that.

"Are you going to argue for the minimizing of God's love?" Nope.
"Are you going to argue that the only whosoever that is meant are only the ones who are going to be irresistibly drawn?" Nope.

"Why do reformed people like yourself work so hard to twist it to conform to your presupposed theological system?"
I haven't. Why are you working so hard to place a theological system that isn't mine in my hands to defend it?

The only positive case I have made is to show that 'world' means 'the whole world' and that it is only those who believe that will receive the benefits of the atonement, because that is what the verse says. To place an argument for the extent of the atonement into the verse is to abuse not only this verse, but your own system, as it's supports are now not true supports.

I really wonder if you did read my post, or just look at my name? I didn't argue for any of the things that you accused me of. Not a single one. Could you just try to forget for a moment that you know I am a Reformed Baptist and address the content of my arguments? I don't need you to supply a theology for me, I have one of my own to present.

No, the simple fact is that John 3:16 does not need much exposition because it is stunningly simple. It does say much about God's love for the whole world (every man, woman, and child) and how God loves the same so that whosoever will may (due to the generous outpouring of love demonstrated by Christ to all men) repent and accept the gift freely offered to all men (whom God loves and desires to be saved). You actually have to break the text to change the same word "kosmos" to mean one thing at the beginning of the verse and something else in the middle of the verse.

So which is it? Are you going to argue for the minimizing of God's love (that He Himself said was for the whole world)? Are you going to argue that God only died for the elect and that somehow this doesn't have a direct bearing on the love He has for the whole world (since His love for the world was demonstrated in this way)? Are you going to argue that the only whosoever that is meant are only the ones who are going to be irresistibly drawn (thereby rendering the will part spurious at best)?

It seems to me that this passage is exceedingly simple. Why do reformed people like yourself work so hard to twist it to conform to your presupposed theological system?

Here is a link to Calvin's commentary on John 3:16: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvi.....i.h…

The fact is that this verse speaks particularly to God's purpose (hence the ἵνα clause [as well, 'οὕτω' and 'ὥστε' show purpose]) not to the extent of the atonement. This certainly does not deny that God loved the world, even the whole world, but to say that this verse establishes that the atonement was applied to the whole world without exception confounds the very idea of what atonement is. Atonement must by definition be effectual.

The dilemma you pose is a false dilemma. Try: C.) God loved the world and sent his only Son that the one who is believing in him will not perish but have eternal life. That is what the verse says. Not more, but if you want to speak about the extent of the atonement you shouldn't limit the ontological Trinity to be logically identical to the economic.

God is eternal. He does not necessarily work in time. It is entirely possible for him to promise life to all who believe without having provided the atonement to each and every individual. It is perfectly true that all who believe will receive eternal life, but God's foreknowledge is bound by what actually will happen. Because he can only know the truth, things cannot possibly happen but as he knows they will. Never forget that he operates outside of time as well as acts inside of time. Time is not natural to him, but he, in love condescends to us by sending his Son in time to save those who believe. Thus he may call all to repentance, but justly provide atonement to those who believe only. It does not turn his call or promise into a lie, but rather establishes it.

I wish that you hadn't claimed that an interpretation of 'world' as 'nations' is somehow necessary to 'prop up' limited atonement, because it simply isn't necessary. Nor do all try to interpret this verse as saying something other than it does. I can't explain or defend those who try to change this word 'world' into 'nations' or 'the elect', but I can speak for myself when I say that this verse is in perfect congruity with the doctrine of particular redemption when it is understood for what it says with out an extra importation of a meaning for world. Whether that importation is bringing in the idea of 'nations' or 'elect' or 'each-and-every-individual-may-if-he-wants-to'. The verse must stand on it's own in it's own context.

The word cannot be limited to mean merely 'nations' for the apostle uses the singular phrase, "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων," which could be rendered accurately, "every one who is believing." It must, then, be referring to all human persons without distinction of nationality, gender, age, socio-economic class, education, social-aptitude, or any other. This verse says that all who believe will not perish, but have everlasting life. To make the word mean only a distinction of nationality is to narrow it far too much. Nevertheless, it hasn't been shown how this passage, and particularly this verse shows that the atonement contradicts it's own meaning by not being effectual in every instance.

Shortly, this isn't a brief exposition, but a brief topical assertion of a portion of your systematic theology misapplying Jn 3:16 to your purposes.