Responding to a YouTube Video by Ante Pavkovic
Proof-Texts and Cross-References
Gen. 3v4; Pr. 10v19; Mt. 1v21 ; Lk. 2v1; Jn. 1v29 [1|11], 3v16 , 12v19; Acts 17v28; Rom. 1v8, 5v10, 11v15; 2 Cor. 5v19-20 ; Gal. 2v20 ; Heb. 8v11; 1 Jn. 2v2 , 4v14, 5v19
The following is my response to a YouTube video, entitled "Limited Atonement", by Ante Pavkovic a.k.a "Providential1611", in which he responded to another YouTube user, going by the pseudonym of "HeSavedMe100".
The first part of Ante's video is well-executed. He did a great job of refuting, probably one of the worst arguments in favour of Limited Atonement, namely the belief that Jesus only died for His sheep (Jn. 10v11), hence He could have died for no other.
This is a fruitless argument, for a number of reason:
➢ One. In Galatians Chapter 2 Verse 20, the Apostle Paul once said, that Christ died for him: "gave Himself for me" (ESV). Now if we'd follow the same argument, we'd have to conclude that Christ only died for the Apostle Paul.
➢ Two. In Matthew Chapter 1 Verse 21, God Himself declared, that Jesus would save His people: "He will save His people from their sins" (ESV). Now if we'd follow the same argument, we'd have to conclude that Christ only died for the Jews.
At this point Ante should have stopped his video, having produced a brilliant, although somewhat arrogant, rebuttal. But, unfortunately, Ante kept going.
Why I Chose to Respond
I decided to respond to Ante for a number of reasons:
➢ One. Because I am both, a Calvinist and former Arminian, who once shared his views.
➢ Two. Because I am required to defend Biblical Truth, whenever and wherever it is under attack. (Philip. 1v7; 1 Cor. 5v1-13)
➢ Three. Ante claims that Calvinism is "perverting Scripture" , and/or a "perversion of God's Holy Word" .
Since I'm a Calvinist, I don't have much of an option, but to respond.
So, with no further adieu, let's have a closer look at the rest of Ante's 'learned opinions'.
The whole premise of Ante's argument against the Doctrine of Limited Atonement, is:
➢ One. That the Scope of Christ's Atonement must be universal, since passages like John Chapter 1 Verse 29 , John Chapter 3 Verse 16  and First John Chapter 2 Verse 2 , made it very clear [or 'obvious'] that Jesus died for "the whole world", without exception.
But is this true?
EXTRACT 03:17-03:29 "Nowhere in Scripture can you show, that a reference to 'the world' means just the elect. Never means that. It means elect and non-elect alike, whatever the subject matter is." 
NOT true. Biblically-speaking the term "world" or "whole world", are often used to refer only to a particular group. (Lk. 2v1; Jn. 1v29, 12v19; Rom. 1v8 and 1 Jn. 5v19) 
"This doesn't help you, because Arminians have asked FOR CENTURIES for Calvinists to produce the verses that tell us that when God said 'world', or WHOLE WORLD, it really ONLY MEANT 'the elect'. Calvinists SAY those verses 'mean' the elect, but its OBVIOUS they don't and they cannot give evidence ANYWHERE that such terms ever "really meant" the elect. That is an artificial construct imposed onto the Scripture, and it is OBVIOUS perversion of God's Holy Word" 
First off, I'm sorry to hear, that you had to wait "centuries for Calvinists to produce the verses that tell us that when God said 'world', or whole world, it really only meant 'the elect'" . That is, indeed, most unfortunate.
However, let me be the 'first' to present you with John Chapter 12 Verse 19, where the term "world" refers only to those who followed Jesus:
"The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after Him. " (Jn. 12v19; KJV)
"WOW. Are you trying to make me spill my coffee all over myself??? What a verse to use a 'proof'! Your citation of that verse violates a number or rules of proper hermeneutics that it would take a entire page to fill this fallacious appeal. It is the equivalent of someone trying to prove suicide is OK from the Bible by taking the statements thusly--"Judas hanged himself", and in another place it says "Go and do likewise". Nice job." 
You asked for a verse, from the Bible, where the term "world" or "whole world" would refer only to the elect. That is why I gave you John Chapter 12 Verse 19.
However, you dismissed my proof-texts, claiming that my "citation of that verse violates a number of rules of proper hermeneutics that it would take a entire page to fill" 
So, I asked you: WHICH rule [or rules] of Biblical Interpretation would that be?
"Your violations OF KNOW BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS SPELLED OUT IN ANY TEXTBOOK ON THE SUBJECT are apparent. These aren't my rules." 
Ante, I asked you WHICH rule [or rules] of interpretation, you claim I violated.
You didn't answer the question, so I ask you again: WHICH rule [or rules] of Biblical Interpretation do you refer too?
That shouldn't be too difficult for someone like yourself, having read so many "textbooks on the subject" .
"You were qouting what UNSAVED MEN SAID, as recorded by John, in which they used a familiar expression, AS IF John was saying it under divine inspiration to prove your ridiculous views." 
OK. So you dismissed John Chapter 12 Verse 19 as nothing but the baseless ramblings of unsaved men?
This may come as a surprise to you, but the Apostle Paul, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), and Athenagoras of Athens (133-190), also 'quoted what unsaved men said':
➢ In Acts Chapter 17 Verse 28 the Apostle Paul quoted a pagan poet to confirm Christian Doctrine.
➢ Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) often quoted pagans like "Homer, Euripides, Xenophon, Menander, and especially Plato" .
➢ Athenagoras of Athens (133-190) often quoted pagan philosophers like Empedocles (490-430 BC) .
Hence, it would seem, that there is nothing wrong with quoting pagans, WHEN AND WHERE THEY CONFIRM BIBLICAL TRUTH.
Yet, I foresee, that you would probably object, claiming that the Pharisees of John Chapter 12 Verse 19 did NOT confirm a Biblical Truth.
But you would be wrong, since my conclusion from John Chapter 12 Verse 19 were also confirmed:
➢ In John Chapter 1 Verse 29 John the Baptist made it very clear, that the term "world" often only referred to those who's sins were removed.
"The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of THE WORLD!'" (Jn. 1v29, ESV)
➢ In Romans Chapter 11 Verse 15 the Apostle Paul made it very clear, that the term "world" often referred only to those who were reconciled to God.
"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of THE WORLD, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11v15, ESV)
➢ In Second Corinthians Chapter 5 Verse 19 the Apostle Paul made it very clear, that the term "world" often only referred only to those were reconciled to God, who's trespasses were no longer imputed to them.
"... that is, in Christ God was reconciling THE WORLD to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5v19, ESV)
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling THE WORLD unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committedc unto us the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5v19, KJV)
➢ In First John Chapter 4 Verse 14 John made it very clear, that sometimes the term "world" refers only to those who are saved by the Saviour.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of THE WORLD." (1 Jn. 4v14, KJV)
➢ In Hebrews Chapter 8 Verse 11 the Apostle Paul made it very clear, that sometimes the term "all" refers only to the saved.
But, I guess, this time round you would probably dismiss me for quoting from the wrong translation. Oh, no wait! I quoted from your favourite translation - the 1611 King James.
"John 1:29 simply needs to be BELIEVED. The Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world. Yes, Christ did that. You deny it, I don't." 
No Ante, I do believe, that Christ took away the sin of 'the world'. However, I don't believe, that He universally removed the sin of 'the whole world' [as you would define it].
IF all were universally reconciled to God: How is it, that the Corinthians were yet to "BE reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5v20)?
Furthermore, IF everyone, without exception, were reconciled to God: then everyone, without exception, should be saved thereby.
"... but God shows His love for US in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for US. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from othe wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received reconciliation." (Rom. 5v8-11, ESV)
Maybe this is why the Bible often mention, that Jesus died for "many" (Is. 53v12; Mt. 26v28), for "His sheep" (Jn. 10v11, v15; Acts 20v28), for "His church" (Acts 20v28; Eph. 5:25-27), for "us" (Rom. 5v8; 1 Thes. 5v10), for "our sins" (1 Jn. 3v5; 1 Cor. 15v3), and for our "brethren" (Rom. 14v15).
That would also explain why Jesus prayed only for "those whom [God] has given [Him]" (Jn. 17v9), and NOT "the world" (Jn. 17v9).
"Why don't you qoute Satan's statements as found in Scripture as doctrine? He did say 'Ye shall not surely die'. Its 'in the Bible so quote it!'" 
Well, Ante, correct me, if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what you Arminians believe, that as a result of the Fall of Man, our nature were merely marred, yet "not completely dead in sin" ?
➢ Isn't it YOU, who deny, that Eve's transgression led to spiritual death?
➢ Isn't it YOU who agree with Satan, that in their transgression Adam and Eve did "not surely die"?
➢ Isn't it YOU who deny the Doctrine of Total Depravity?
Yet, you are concerned about me quoting the Pharisees of John Chapter 12 Verse 19? I'd be much more concerned about confirming the words of Lucifer himself.
Bit ironic, don't you think? Oh yeah, that's right, you don't think.
"You are PERVERTING Scripture." 
No my friend, it is you who are "perverting Scripture" , while calling upon "an artificial construct"  and "fallacious appeal" , in defence of Universal Atonement. *
Contrary to Ante's assertion, we have seen that:
➢ One. That regardless of the subject matter, the term "world" or "whole world" are often used as referring only to a particular group. (Lk. 2v1; Jn. 1v29, 12v19; Rom. 1v8 and 1 Jn. 5v19) 
➢ Two. That the term "world" [or "whole world"] do indeed often refer to the elect exclusively. (Jn. 12v19; Rom. 11v15; 2 Cor. 5v19 and 1 Jn. 4v14)
"When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise." (Pr. 10v19, NIV)
* I must thank Ante for all the "big words", I could never have come up with them all by myself.
1. VIDEO: Ante Pavkovic a.k.a "Providential1611". Limited Atonement (YouTube; 6 June 2009) ✔
2. EJ Hill. The Doctrine of Universal Atonement (Hillside; 5 August 2012) ✔
3. EJ Hill. Defining the word 'World' (Hillside; 5 August 2012) ✔
4. EJ Hill. John Chapter 3 Verse 16 (Hillside; 5 August 2012) ✔
5. Ante Pavkovic. In a YouTube Comment to EJ Hill [screenshot] (YouTube; 6 August 2012) ✔
6. Ante Pavkovic. In a YouTube Comment to EJ Hill [screenshot] (YouTube; 7 August 2012) ✔
7. Ante Pavkovic. In a YouTube Comment to EJ Hill [screenshot] (YouTube; 6 August 2012) ✔
8. St. Justin Martyr (New Advent; 5 January 2011) ✔
9. Irenaeus. Chapter XXXVII: Men are possessed of free will, from Against Heresies (Christian Classics Ethereal Library; 13 July 2005) ✔
10. Dr. C. Matthew McMahon. The 'god' of Arminianism is Not Worshippable (A Puritan's Mind; 8 August 2012) ✔
11. Ante Pavkovic. In a YouTube Comment to EJ Hill [screenshot] (YouTube; 9 August 2012) ✔