Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity

How DOES John use the term “world” elsewhere? Not just elsewhere – in the same book. Not just in the same book – on the same subject.

 

“There was the true Light, which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. He came to his own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John 1:9-12)

 

The Greek phrase “panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon” means “every human being coming into the world.” The point is: “world” is equated with “every human being” (panta anthropon). We don’t need the Greek to figure this out. Notice: in the next sentence, the “world” did not know Him; therefore “world” cannot refer to the elect. Those who were “His own” did not receive Him, therefore “His own” does not refer to the elect. “But to those who did receive Him” – those people are what the Calvinist would call the elect. John does not use the term “world” to mean the elect among the Gentiles. One might argue that he uses it to mean ALL Gentiles. But based on the fact that ‘panta anthropon’ is used in the previous sentence, it’s clear that he’s referring to every human being.

 

John the disciple, speaks of John, the Baptist, two verses prior, saying:

 

“The same (John) came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through Him might believe.” (John 1:7)

 

Based on verse 9, (immediate context) I understand “all” (pantes) to refer to “every human being coming into the world.”

 

Notice that ALL men MIGHT believe. In fact, some do, some don’t – but all might. In other words, the Atonement is not limited in scope; the provision has been made for ALL.

 

Speaking of the Spirit, Jesus says,

 

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer see me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.” (John 16:8)

 

Notice that the “world” being spoken of here contains sin AND righteousness AND the ruler of this world (I take this to be Satan).

 

“I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes on me will not remain in darkness. And 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. He who rejects me, and does not receive my sayings, has one who judges him: the word I spoke is what will judge him in the last day.” (John 12:46-48)

 

Notice that Jesus here says that He came to save those who reject Him. Those who reject His sayings He did not come to judge - but to save. Therefore, “world” in this context includes those who reject Him. So, again, this text appears to say that the scope of the Atonement is not limited to the elect and that Jesus died even for those who reject Him.

 

“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20 – 23)

 

There are three distinct groups here.

 

1) The apostles (“these alone”).

2) Those who believe through the word of the apostles.

3) The world.

 

Jesus is asking NOT ONLY for the apostles, but also for those who believe through their word, SO THAT the world may believe. “World” cannot refer to the elect since “those who believe through their (apostles) word” is the elect. If “world” refers to the elect here (which is what a Calvinist would say) Jesus (and John) wouldn’t have used the word “may” or “might”. (Other translations use the word “might” – so that the world MIGHT believe.) They would have said something like, “So that the world WILL believe.” If Grace is irresistible, “may” or “might” is the wrong word to use. So the term “world” in this passage is not referring to the elect, but is used in a universal sense, and indicates that the Atonement provides for those who MAY believe.

 

Here’s one more text. This is from a different book. That means more potential for invalid comparisons, but we’re still looking at the same author and the same subject so there’s some safety here.

 

“And he (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (I John 2:2)

 

In Greek the term used is: “peri olou tou kosmou,” literally: “regarding all of the world.” In Greek, as in English, this is immediately perceived to mean the entire world. Notice: different book– different Greek phrase – even though it’s the same author. In terms of comparing scripture to scripture, more variables have been introduced.

 

Notice that I did not just randomly pick other scriptures where John used the word “world”. I didn’t even pick other scriptures where “world” is obviously used in a universal sense – there are many. In all the scriptures I’ve given above, the immediate context is salvation, faith, righteousness, justification, atonement, etc. Whenever John uses the word “world” IN THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THE ATONEMENT, it is ALWAYS UNIVERSAL.

 

I am perfectly aware that there are places where John uses the term “world” and it is obviously limited in scope. The Greek word for “world” is “cosmos”. It not only refers to God’s universal creation but also can mean “multitudes of people”. Thus in Greek it can be said: “Eto poli[s] kosmos ekei,” literally translated: “There was much “world” there.” This is commonly understood as: “There were many people there.” It is for this reason that in Greek, the term for crowd, is “polycosmia” from “poly” (much) plus “cosmos” (world).

 

So, when John records the Pharisees who said: “behold, the world is gone after him,” he means quite simply: “behold, the people have gone after him.” (John 12:19). What people were these? The people who were present in the vicinity. Likewise when it was said that “there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed” (Luke 2:1), it was meant that “there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the people should be taxed.” What people? The whole world? No, only the Judeans, or perhaps the Roman “world”. Conversely, when Jesus said: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mt 16:15), we understand that He meant the entire world, without exception. That is every human being. One doesn’t have to know Greek to ascertain the correct rendering of the word “world” in these instances. Neither does one have to know Greek to ascertain the correct rendering of “world” in John 3:16 or any of the other examples I’ve given. Neither does one have to read Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Armenius, Wesley, or anybody to ascertain the correct rendering of “world”. (One might be interested in their thoughts on the matter – that’s ok) Neither does one have to “compare” any other scripture to ascertain the correct rendering of “world” in ANY of these examples. It’s obvious from the immediate context.

 

When Calvinists argue that the term “world” is not ALWAYS used in a universal sense, they are quite correct. But when they “compare”(???) a passage like, “…there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed…” and “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son that whosoever…” and use the “Augustus” passage to say or imply that the “God so loved” passage doesn’t mean what it appears to say, they are abusing the hermeneutical principles that they espouse so highly, and misusing them to ignore or deny the immediate context and to violently twist the meaning of John 3:16 so that it “fits” Calvinist doctrine. (I’m not saying that this is conscious. I do not question their sincerity or motivation.) Those 2 scriptures have NOTHING to do with each other. The immediate context of one passage has nothing to do with the immediate context of the other, they aren’t talking about the same subject, they’re not even the same kind of “talking”! One is a narrative historical statement and the other is a theological statement - and the meaning of the term “world” in each case can easily be determined by the immediate context, without comparative studies, English, Greek, and Hebrew lexicons, concordances, bible dictionaries and over two thousand years of systematic theological obfuscation. (God help us!) Comparing scripture to scripture – as in taking a concordance and looking up EVERYWHERE the word is used, from Genesis to Revelation, to arrive at the “Biblical Doctrine” - is not only unnecessary, but can be counterproductive. Many times this technique actually causes one to misinterpret the passage in question, in spite of the obvious meaning that is apparent from the immediate context – as in the Calvinist interpretation of John 3:16 – because one is comparing 2 scriptures that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, they just happen to have a common word.

 

As far as I’m concerned, generally speaking, one need go no farther than the immediate context of the passage in question in order to get at what it means. However, because I am playing according to Calvinist rules I will continue.

 

Let’s consider some examples of Paul’s use of the word “world” and by association (see Rom.8:12 below), the term “all men”. Remember, we are now getting further from John 3:16. We are now “comparing” apples and oranges, that is, Johns and Pauls. We now have greater potential for invalid comparisons. Maintaining the consistency of the subject matter of the immediate context (Salvation, Atonement, etc) is VERY important. Our safety potential lies in the fact that these two authors were contemporaries, from the same culture, writing at about the same time. So, consider these passages.

 

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…” (Rom 8:12)

 

The term “world” in this passage obviously means the whole world and “all sinned” means everybody. I’m pretty sure Calvinists would agree because they use this scripture to support their doctrine known as “Total Depravity.”

 

“So then as through one transgression there resulted in condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” (Rom 8:18)

 

Verse 18 is a logical equation: 1 transgression resulted in death to all; even so, 1 act of righteousness resulted in life to all. Calvinists believe that the first “all” in this equation means “all.” (I’m comparing verse 12 (which is immediate context) “…all sinned…” and they would doubtless compare, “…all have sinned and fallen short…”) But they don’t believe the second “all” means “all”. It, they say, refers only to the elect. In spite of the fact that Paul sets this up as an equation – “even so” - Calvinists do not accept Paul’s equation. Paul CLEARLY presents the sin and the salvation as equal in scope.

 

“…we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” (1Timothy 4:10)

 

“All men” cannot refer to the elect because “especially of believers” would be the elect. The “Savior-ness” of God is to “all men”. This interpretation is verified once again by the Greek, “panton anthropon” (all human beings).

 

“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, (panton anthropon) for kings and all who are in authority…This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and 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.” (1Timothy 2:1 – 6)

 

It seems obvious to me that given Paul’s clearly universal use of “all” in 1Tim 4:10 that it would be safe to say that the word “all” in the above text is also used in the universal sense. The subject matter of the statement is the same, the author is the same, and the book is the same. One can come to this conclusion without any aid, just by paying attention to the immediate context. Nevertheless, for you scholarly types, the Greek for “…who desires all men to be saved…” is “pantos anthropos”. This reflects the statement to pray for “all men” (panton anthropon) given previously in the same sentence. Therefore, “…gave Himself as ransom for all…” (panton) must be taken in the universal sense.

 

"For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all (panton), then all (pantos) died; and He died for all (panton), that those who live should live no longer for themselves but for Him who, died for them and rose again" (2 Corinthians 5:14-15.)

 

“…He died for all, that those who live…” Not everyone He died for lives, but those who DO live, live because He died for all. Paul’s use of “panton/pantos” in the universal sense in this passage is consistent with his use of the same word in all the above scriptures.

 

Here’s a counterexample from Peter. This is a passage commonly used by Armenians, Universalists, et al, to “prove” the universal scope of the Atonement. While I believe the scope of the Atonement is universal, I do not believe this is an appropriate proof text.

 

“The Lord…is patient towards you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all (pantos) to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

 

Based on the universality that I’ve established from other scriptures, I would initially tend to see this text in a universal sense. However, upon closer inspection, the immediate context mitigates against this interpretation. My initial perception was based on an invalid comparison. (Different book/different author/different context for the use of the word “pantos”.) In this case, the patience of the Lord is towards “you”, that is, the believers Peter was writing to, so the “all” in this context refers to the “all” of the “you”. Immediate context is what determines the meaning. Other scriptures should not be used to deny or ignore or twist the immediate context. This interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 does not mitigate against a universal scope to the Atonement, which I believe has been firmly established in other texts of scripture, but it does mitigate against using this particular text as “proof”.

 

When the root pas/pan (panton, pantos etc.) is used it is always used in a universal sense within the subject of the immediate context.

 

…in all places everywhere…(Mark 16:20 – Luke 9:6)

…in every instance…(Acts 24:3)

…at all times…always…(Mathew 26:11, Mark 14:7, Luke 15:31)

…in all respects…(Acts 20:35, I Corinthians 9:25, 10:33, 11:2)

…on all sides…on every side…roundabout…(Luke 19:43, Heb 9:4)

 

There is no dearth of passages in Pauline writings that explicitly state that the scope of the Atonement is universal. I could come up with many more but, frankly, Calvinists can’t concede error concerning Limited Atonement without conceding error concerning all of TULIP, and I don’t see that happening so easily. Of course, I would love to be proved wrong! I hope I’ve made my position on why I don’t agree with the Calvinist interpretations of the scriptures I’ve exegeted clear.

 

Now if I were to go to the OT use of the term “world” I would be getting further and further from John 3:16. That means that the validity of the “comparison” becomes less and less certain. I could do that, and still easily support my thesis, but I’m not going to, because the further from John 3:16 I get, the closer I get to a point of diminishing returns - the variables become overwhelming and the certainty that the comparisons are valid decreases. I think my point should be understood by now.

 

The point being, “world” in John 3:16 is universal. Conclusion: The Calvinist concept of Limited Atonement is bogus.

 

NEXT: Paul Fahey: Does God Love Everyone?