elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
I'd search the archives because Matthew Winzer has pretty much shredded the using of Calvin for 4-pointer arguments.
Reference? I'm not saying that Calvin is a 4-pointer, only that his use of love in John 3:16 in reference to Jesus has the same "inconsistencies" that 5-pointers accuse 4-pointers of.
Anyway, (a) you're use of "love" is subject to ambiguity. Frequently divine "love" is intimately connected to divine "foreknowledge" whcih is intimately connected to "election." Look before you leap! (b) Jesus says that "I lay down my life for my sheep." Not "for my sheep and the wolves." (c) In fact, this atoneing "love" is "the *greatest*" kind of love one could express. How would this not lead to salvation. (d) The "ransom" is for "many." Though 'all' doesn't necessarily mean 'all,' 'many' never means 'all' (universally). (c) How does this tie into your reformed baptist views of Hebrews? The covenant? The role of Christ as high priest? Christ's *death* was the offering of a *priest* for *the people.* So are all men in the new covenant, in a sense? Systematics comes in helpful here.
Certainly there are many types of love. I point you to D. A. Carson's excellent book "Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."
I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of one man giving his life for many, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.
For example, if I went to a Baptist convention, and five people showed up, I'd say "There weren't many Baptists." If I went and, say, all the Baptists in the world showed up, I'd say "There were many Baptists attending." If I gave a speech, I'd say "I gave a speech to many Baptists." The word "many" has to do with the relative amount. It has nothing to do with whether all the Baptists were there.