Of particular interest to some of my readers I excerpt this paragraph from the linked article:
The Westminster Assembly also has some contentions concerning the idea of the word “world” due to the theological positions of the Amyraldians in their meetings (such as Davenant). Rutherford, Seaman, and Gillespie contended for the word “world” as meaning “the elect” and presented the idea to the Assembly and the Assembly accepted their proposition concerning God loving the “world” as God loving the “elect”. This was noted in detail in their Minutes.[37] The consensus of the Assembly was to abandon the Amyraldian notion that God loves all men generally[38] and moved forward with the meaning of John 3:16 as particular for the elect only.
3 comments:
TF:
I scanned the article but it would seem as though Pastor McMahon would take it that God so loved the world of the elect and says, which I would disagree with, but he says,
I admit that my interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented on my own, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them
So, you would disagree with him correct; that the world is created order and not world of elect.
No, I'd agree with McMahon. That's why I linked his article here.
The literal sense (the created order / universe) is one thing, and the figurative usage is another thing (world of the elect (more Owen-esque), world generally, etc.).
I would agree with McMahon, when he quoted Pink, who said: "The fact is that “the world” is used in a general way."
It still seems you are grappling with that literal/figurative distinction.
I think I may have to break my amalgamated comments into something more handy.
-Turretinfan
TF
if for no one else, please, for my sake, they are ganging up on me over there!
Amalgamate, huh? :)
Post a Comment