Thanks for the heads up on the SG publication of the Cotton work. I visited your site and was pleased to see all the works listed in the pdf section. Are the modern reproductions in pdf unabridged as to content? And would you permit me to post some of the Baxter here? Ive got a copy of the original, but its horrible to type out. Copy-pasting from that pdf would be cool. I would cite the source link for the pdf of course.

Thanks,
David

If you wouldn’t mind, and please don’t take this the wrong way, but the Theology Online blog is a better place to discuss some of this, or the Calvin and Calvinism Yahoo list. The C&C blog is focused on historical theology, with the view of examining the history of Reformation soteriology.

I take a brief stab at some of this here, but if you wish to reply, can you reply over at Theology Online. The Wardlaw post will do if you like.

Dan: Thanks for your reply but if you would be so kind, David, would you research Jesus’s reply to Nicodemus and consider these things. Why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that “God so loved the world”? Wouldn’t you think that meant Nicodemus didn’t believe that.

David: Basically, is the idea here that how the hearer would understand the terms delimits the meaning of the author’s intent? That’s valid to a certain degree. However, we may have good evidence that the authors, in his case, Jesus and John, may have had a different meaning, to which they were trying to bring their respective audiences to. Further, even if we factor in ethnic exclusivism, the point still holds, in Jesus and John, the whole world is involved in the scandal, not just the Gentiles.

Dan: Also, why would Jesus continue by saying, “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world”? Wouldn’t you think that meant Nicodemus thought Messiah came to condemn the world?

David: My reply would be the same again. And we can add the typical serpent. The serpent a provision for the Jews. Christ is the anti-type and is a provision not only for the Jews–so wake up Nicodemus–but for the world. Jesus does this quite a few times, the bread for the nation, is now the bread for the world. and so on.

Dan: As far as Jewish thought on the word world, this is not an original though by Lightfoot. I don’t have any direct quotations for you yet but it is absolutely true that Jewish people believe there are 2 kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles.

David: I can only deal with the latter at this point. Sure, that’s not the problem. The question is, could Jewish language speak of a category of the world as including all individuals without any exception? You said that’s impossible. Secondly, the next question here is, what was John and Jesus thinking?

Dan: They refer to Gentiles as “world.” I will get you some quotes from Jewish writings on that. Also, the word translated world which is kosmos does not carry the idea of every individual on the face of the earth.

David: That would be good. A few things though. Do you have any instances where the Jews spoke of the world as containing all living members of it? Secondly, in terms of church history, I believe I am still correct. In terms interpretative history, the idea that world for John meant the Gentiles, as opposed the Jews, etc, really took off in the 17thC. For the most part, from what I can see, the basic interpretation was the church scattered throughout the world (Augustine), or all mankind etc.

Dan: There is a word like that but I believe it is “oikomenos”. The Scriptures constantly make it clear that the idea that God did not come for the Gentiles was believed by the Jews at that time. There is absolutely nothing that could prove it otherwise. Therefore, when the word “world” is used, many times it refers to Gentiles and not to every individual on the face of the earth.

David: There are some layers here that are being conflated. There is the point regarding what Calvin believed. There is my personal opinion about what Scripture and classic lexicography imply, your opinion, what the Jews allegedly thought, and the idea that world must mean all men without any exception.

So lets separate some of this. I am not committed to saying that kosmos for John means all men alive without any exception. I can extend this to mean, all who have lived, live, and shall live, as well as the more simple: all men without any exception alive at any given time. I dont need to defend this in regard to John 3:16, etc.

Rather I am committed to the idea that John, and Jesus, primarily used kosmos to denote the apostate world in opposition to God alive at any given time. I think this is Calvin’s intent. The world means all of us, as we are in unbelief.

Dan: That is why John could say and “not for us only…” Obviously, he is showing that the Gospel is not just for Jews, as it comes to the Jew first, but also for Gentiles.

David: I address the use of John 11 here John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2

cut

Dan: …Your appeal to the word “world” and the several quotes from Calvin is based on the Western idea that world means “everyone on the face of the earth” vs all mankind, in general.

David: The question is: did Calvin commit this alleged Western error?

Dan: That’s different than using the word world in a way when researched shows that it was never meant to be translated that way. Your whole argument of making the atonement for everyone who ever lived on the face of the earth rests on that error. Yes, Christ (Messiah) died for the sins of the world which means not just Jews but people of all races (Gentiles).

David: Sure, I understand the formal argument. I don’t find it convincing. I find the idea platonic, as it makes John and Jesus define world in the terms of “forms” and “kinds” which opposed the generally Semitic idea of concrete particulars. When some say Christ died for the world, it works like this: World=Gentiles, Gentiles=elect. That has to follow if we believe that within the term “world” Jesus, and John, had identifiable concrete particulars in mind.

Dan: It is not a specific teaching that Messiah died for everyone who ever lived or will live or died or will die on the face of the earth. That is the strong point of all this. That is, Christ (Messiah) did not come for Jews only but for non-Jews too.

David: Sure, I understand the claim. The question though, should “world” be taken by way of Plato or by way of Aristotle? If we say Plato, we end in irrationality. If we say Aristotle, we have to face further questions.

Dan: This is constantly repeated because the prevailing idea at that time was that God would never send His Son (Messiah) to atone for Gentile dogs.

David: Okay… We also have to ask ourselves, this, Did Jesus mean to Nicodemus, that God so loved the Gentiles *a group set apart in opposition* to the Jews? is that the thought, Dan?

For the sake of this blog’s purpose, what I will do if you chose to reply, is repost your future comment over at Theology Online and reply there if you don’t mind. If you do mind, email me.

If you want to speak to Calvin directly, we can deal with that here.

Thanks for your patience.

David

If Ive got the right Mark Gunkel on Facebook I sent you an invite thingie.

If I read the first sentence there, and if I am reading it correctly, I
sense that whats been happening in the background is a feeling of
exclusion. If you are not saying that, I say it this anyway. :-) One of
the main prevailing myths out there in WWW is the idea that what most folk know as 5 point Calvinism, and that interpreted through through a Owenic grid, is the only Calvinism that ever was. This often then produces a few interesting social dynamics: arrogance, pride, exclusivity etc. This often lead to a further dynamics of intimation and bullying. The problem is that the historical facts speak against all such claims to exclusivity, and they refute all intimidation attempts we see so often see on the Net.

Moving on, I don’t post on Puritanboard any more. My estimation that forum is that its hardly Puritan, and mostly hypercalvinist. I shall tell you a little more of my time there privately if you like. Heidelblog was interesting. Clark didn’t really seem interested in checking his historical facts. I realized later that he appears to have just uncritically relied on Blacketer’s faulty historical work.

The Typos. Thanks for that. I hate that I make typos but given the circumstances its going to be an ongoing problem. I rectify all typos as soon as they come to my attention. I will fix the ones youve spotted tomorrow.

Regarding Paraeus, as I recall, Ursinus died before completing all the work. In one place, specifically, Paraeus himself filled in a section. There is no question that the section mirrors Ursinus’ own theology, even Nicole concedes this. As far as I know the only section where Paraeus filled in was on:

Q 40: Why was it necessary for Christ to suffer “death”? A40: Because the justice and truth of God required that satisfaction for our sins could be made in no other way than by the death of the Son of God.

III Did Christ die for all?

The original Latin and Dutch had the side-header or header that the following was from Paraeus. unfortunately, Willard declined to include this. You will find the inserted section in the Paraeus file itself.

Thanks for stopping by Greg. And I am glad the C&C site has been helpful to you. If you have any questions you can contact me through facebook or by email.

Thanks and take care,
David