The Love and Hatred of God, and John 3:16
Introduction
The Arminians often reason from John 3:16 that if God loves the world (everyone without exception including the people who are already in hell), then the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination must be wrong. Many Calvinists today would agree with the Arminians that God indeed loves sinful humanity in general or everyone without exception including the people who are already in hell, however they also think eternal predestination is still true. Arminians often find that both statements contradict one another, and I agree with them. Not only it is an actual contradiction, but it is also an unbiblical view of God’s love. They would defend that it is a logical paradox i.e., “a situation where an assertion (or two or three assertions) is self-contradictory, or at least seems to be so; one way or the other the assertion cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason.”[1] Many theologians have a habit of categorizing theological statements that are clearly contradictory as irreconcilable paradox. With that kind of attitude, I can throw logic out of the window and believe in anything and just call it a paradox. The Bible does not contain paradox. Reason and logic is a powerful tool given by God to draw out the meanings of Scripture. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Of the Holy Scripture, Paragraph 6).
How could God love someone whom He has predestined to damnation from all eternity according to His mere pleasure? Furthermore, God has also pre-ordained the means that will bring the wicked reprobate to damnation. God has set the wicked reprobate in slippery places: He castedst them down into destruction (Psalm 73:18). If God really loves the reprobate and yet they are not saved, then God’s love for them is ineffectual. That is the bastardization of God’s love. Can any aspect of God’s love be ineffectual? This should disturb the advocates of the total absolute sovereignty and omnipotence of God. Whom God loves; He will surely save. The LORD has promised all the elect Israel that they will definitely be saved because He loves them with an everlasting love: “I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee” (Jeremiah 31:3). Why are not the reprobate wicked drawn to Christ? Because God has not loved them with an everlasting love. 1 John 4:19 tells us that we love Him, because He first loved us. In other words, because God has loved the elect from all eternity, therefore He has caused them to willingly love Him. By the law of logic, since God will not cause the reprobate wicked to believe and love Him, it means that God has not loved them from all eternity. Hate is the opposite of love.
I understand that theologians distinguish
between God’s general love for all without exception and special love only for
the elect. But is that distinction biblical? God’s general love, said they, can
be proven from the fact that God provides all humans in general with water,
food, rain, and sunshine. They also said that it proves God’s common grace to
all men without exception i.e., God showing a non-salvific favorable attitude towards all
including the reprobate wicked. Is God’s providence for the reprobate wicked
really about God showing non-salvific favour and love to them? Psalm 92:7 speaks of God’s intention
in providing the physical needs of the reprobate: “When the wicked spring as
the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they
shall be destroyed for ever”. God provides the physical needs of the
reprobate wicked as the means to the end (the final destination) that they will be
destroyed in hell forever. It is all done not out of God's love and grace, but out of His eternal hatred for the reprobate wicked.
Psalms 11:5-6 speaks of God’s eternal hatred towards the reprobate wicked and
their destiny: “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth
violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and
brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.
Therefore, there is no such thing as general/common love and grace for the reprobate wicked because the terms love and grace are always particular to the elect. Can something that is intrinsically special be made common and ordinary? Can anyone find a shred of God’s love when he reads about Pharaoh, a vessel of dishonor, in Romans 9? God loves Jacob unconditionally, but Esau He has hated unconditionally, before they do anything good or evil (Romans 9:11-13). Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid (Romans 9:14).
They would also argue that the command for
Christians to evangelize indiscriminately is a proof of God’s universal love to
everyone without exception. We preach the Gospel to everyone indiscriminately
because God has decreed it to be His preordained means to soften the hearts of
the elect that they will believe, and to harden the hearts of the reprobate wicked that
they will not believe. Furthermore, we do not know who the elect and reprobate
are, hence we preach indiscriminately. After rebuking the Pharisees, the
disciples asked the Lord: Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended,
after they heard this saying? But he (Jesus) answered and said, Every plant,
which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matthew
15:12-13). John 12:37-40 declares: “But though he had done so many miracles
before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the
prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?
and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not
believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand
with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” This is the
doctrine of reprobation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The World of John 3:16
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:16-18)
Who does the “world” in John 3:16 refer to? The answer lies in the immediate context within v.16-18:
Q1 - For whom did God the Father gave His only begotten Son for? (v.16 – “he gave his only begotten Son”)
Ans: The elect. Jesus prayed to the Father: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word (John 17:6). I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine (John 17:9).” “And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's” (1 Corinthians 3:23).
Q2 - Who are the people who will certainly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? (v.16 – “that whosoever believeth in him”)
Ans: The elect. John 10:27 says: “My sheep hear my
voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” The “whosoever believeth in him” cannot
refer to the reprobate wicked because they will never believe as God will never give
them the faith to believe. Salvation is not conditional upon God seeing through
the windows of time to foresee if any man would respond positively to His call,
but it depends wholly on God who sovereignly gives faith to the elect that they
may believe according to his eternal election.
Q3 - Who are the ones who will never
perish, but have everlasting life? (v.16 – “should not perish, but have
everlasting life”)
Ans: The elect. John 10:28 says: “And I give unto
them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck
them out of my hand.”
Q4 - Who are the ones whom God will not
condemn? (v.17 – “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world”)
Ans: The elect. “There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:1).
Q5 - Who are they that will not be
given the faith to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore they will be
condemned? (v.18 – “he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”)
Ans: The reprobate. John 12:37-40 declares the
prophecy of Isaiah: “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet
they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be
fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath
the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because
that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart;
that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and
be converted, and I should heal them.”
By the method of Scripture interpreting
Scripture (with a Calvinistic presupposition) exhibited above in revealing
the exact identity of the people who are mentioned in John 3:16-18, is there
any rational Calvinist who still thinks that the “world” whom God so loved is
referring to everyone without exception including those who are already in hell?
The word “World” does not always mean everyone without exception. Acts 11:28
says that there would be “great dearth throughout all the world: which came to
pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” Does “all the world” really mean all
nations without exception? Does it include Timor Leste and Australia also? We
know from the context that “all the world” is referring to the Roman Empire
during the apostolic time. Let’s use one more example from Luke 2:1 - “And it
came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus,
that all the world should be taxed.” Again, does the “all the world” here refer
to all nations and lands without exception? It is obviously referring to the
Roman Empire. So now, with the identity of the elect overwhelming the immediate
context of John 3:16-18, the world can only mean the elect i.e., the Universal Church. Revelation 5:9-10 further defines the “world” of John 3:16 - “And they
sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the
seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us
unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Revelation
5:9-10). Hence, the “world” of John 3:16 refers to all the elect in the world out
of every tongue, tribe, and nations. If 2 Peter 2:5 speaks of "the world of the ungodly", why can't the "world" in John 3:16 mean the world of the godly (elect)?
Below quotations are proofs that this interpretation
of John 3:16 is not new. It is historical and biblical.
The Geneva Theses (1649) – Anti-Amyraldian creed
(https://purelypresbyterian.com/2021/08/23/the-geneva-theses-1649/ ; https://cprc.co.uk/articles/genevatheses/)
2. Sacred Scripture occasionally
represents election to salvation and to the means of salvation distinctly and
for that reason they may be distinctly considered: Christ was sent and died
according to the counsel of God the Father, proceeding from His eternal love
toward the elect.
4. The matchless love and mercy of God is the sole cause both of the sending of the Son and of the satisfaction appointed beforehand through Him, even the conferring of faith and application of merit through it: which benefits should not be objects of separation or be torn asunder from themselves.
Rejection of the error of those:
1. Who teach that in God there is
granted, under the condition of faith and repentance, some good will of saving
those who perish.
2. Who, using economy (ὂικονομίας) for an excuse, ascribe to God the inclination or volition or disposition or affection or less ardent love or power or intention or desire or will or counsel or decree or covenant or necessary or universal conditional loving kindness, by which He wills each and every man to be saved if they believe in Christ.
3. Who assign to God a design previous to
election in which He determined to be merciful to the whole human race without
limit.
4. Who attribute to God a twofold
loving-kindness, one clear or first and universal by which He willed each and
every person to be saved: the other more clear, second, and particular towards
the elect.
Rejection of the error of those:
Who teach that Christ died for each and every
one sufficiently, not merely by reason of worth, but also by reason of
intention; or for all conditionally, if they were to believe; or who assert
that Scripture teaches that Christ died for all men universally; and most
especially the places of Scripture (Ezek. 18:21 etc. and 31:11; John 3:16; 1
Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) ought to be extended to each and every man and by these
the universality of love and grace ought to be proved.
Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) - Genevan Anti-Amyraldian creed
(https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/helvetic-consensus-formula-1675/)
Canon V: Christ himself is also included in the gracious decree of divine election, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation prior to election itself, but as being himself also elect (I Pet 2:4, 6). Indeed, he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first requisite of the execution of the decree of election, chosen Mediator, and our first-born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for the purpose of conferring, without detriment to his own justice, salvation upon us. For the Holy Scriptures not only declare that election was made according to the mere good pleasure of the divine counsel and will (Eph 1:5, 9; Matt 11:26), but was also made that the appointment and giving of Christ, our Mediator, was to proceed from the zealous love of God the Father toward the world of the elect.
Canon VI: Wherefore, we cannot agree with the
opinion of those who teach: l) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of
special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned
willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire,
determine the salvation of all, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe, 2)
that he appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3) that,
at length, certain ones whom he regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam,
but as redeemed in the second Adam, he elected, that is, he determined
graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this
sole act election properly so called is complete. For these and all other
similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper
teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto
all and each God’s
purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the
reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal
hatred (Rom 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will
of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the heavens does
whatsoever he will (Ps 115:3; Isa 47:10); for God is infinitely removed from
all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and
desires, rashness repentance and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of
Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to him
for a possession and an inheritance that cannot be taken away, proceeds from
one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election.
Francis Turretin (1623-1687)
(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, Volume 1, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg,
NJ: 1992. Page 405)
The love treated in John 3:16 when it is said
that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” cannot be
universal towards each and every one, but special towards a few. (1) It treats
of the supreme and immense love of God (a greater than which is not and cannot
be conceived) to those he gave his only begotten. This is evident both from the
intensive (epitatike) particle houtos (which has great weight here) and from
the thing itself. For no one can have a greater love than to lay down his life
for his friends (John 15:13), so no greater love can be found than that by
which God (when men were yet enemies) delivered his own Son to death for them.
And as Abraham could not more evidently prove his piety to God than by offering
up his son as a sacrifice, so God could not more illustriously demonstrate his
love to men than by giving up his Son to them as a propitiatory victim
(hilastiken). (2) The love by which God gave his Son draws after itself all
other things necessary to salvation: “For he that spared not his own Son, but
delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all
things?” (Rom. 8:32). But not upon each and every one, rather upon the elect
alone, he bestows all things with Christ. (3) Therefore, the end of that love
which God intends is the salvation of those whom he pursues with such love;
hence he adds, “For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:17). If therefore God
sent Christ for that end (that through him the world might be saved), he must
either have failed of his end or the world must be necessarily saved in fact. However,
it is certain that not the whole world, but only the chosen out of the world
are saved; therefore to them properly this love has reference. Nor can it be
conceived if a universal love is here understood, how such and so great love
(which is by far the cause of the greatest and most excellent good, viz., the
mission of Christ) can consist with the hatred of innumerable persons whom he
willed to pass by and ordain to damnation (to whom he never has revealed either
his Son or willed to bestow faith, without which it is set forth in vain). Nor
can it be conceived how this love of God can be so greatly commended here which
yet remains void and inefficacious on account of the defect of subjective
grace, which God has determined to deny.
John Owen (1616-1683)
(Works of
John Owen, vol. 10 [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993], 319ff [see
whole discourse]. Quote cited from page 321)
First … Now, this love we say
to be that, greater than which there is none. Secondly, by the ‘world’, we understand the elect of God only, though
not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of
them, serves for the farther exaltation of God’s love towards them, which is
the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures
in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not
tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred and language under
heaven. Thirdly, ‘ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων’, ‘in order that every believer,’ is to
us, and is declarative of the intention of God in sending or giving his Son,
containing no distribution of the world beloved but a direction to the person
whose good was intended, that love being an unchangeable intention of the
chiefest good. Fourthly, ‘Should not perish, but have life everlasting,’
contains an expression of the particular aim and intention of God in this business,
which is, the certain salvation of believers by Christ. And this, in general,
is the interpretation of the words which we adhere unto, which will yield us
sundry arguments, efficient each of them to ever the general ransom; which,
that they may be the better bottomed, and the more clearly convincing, we will
lay down and compare the several words and expression of this place, about
whose interpretation we digress, with the reason of our rejecting the one sense
and embracing the other: The first difference in the interpretation of this
place is about the cause of sending Christ; called here love. The second, about
the object of this love; called here the world. Thirdly, concerning the
intention of God in sending his Son; said to be that believers might be saved.
John Flavel (c. 1627–1691)
(John Flavel Volume 1, Sermon 4, The
Fountain of Life, Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA, 1968. Page 63-64)
The objects of this love, or the persons to
whom the eternal Lord delivered Christ, and that is the [World.] This must
respect the elect of God in the world, such as do, or shall actually believe,
as it is exegetically expressed in the next words, “That whosoever believes in
him should not perish.” Those whom he calls the world in that he stiles
believers in this expression; and the word “World” is put to signify the elect,
because they are scattered through all parts, and are among all ranks of men in
the world; these are the objects of this love; it is not angels, but men, that
were so loved; he is called flanqropos, a Lover, a Friend of Men, but never
filangellos, or filoklisos, the Lover or Friend of Angels, or creatures of
another species.
John Gill (1697-1771)
(Exposition of the Old and New
Testaments, Volume 7, Baptist Standard Bearer, Paris AR, 1989. Page 772-773)
“For God so loved the world…” The Persic
version reads “men”: but not every man in the world is here meant, or all the
individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God’s special love,
which is here designed, as appears from the instance and evidence of it, the
gift of his Son: nor is Christ God’s gift to every one; for to whomsoever he
gives his Son, he gives all things freely with him; which is not the case of
every man. Nor is human nature here intended, in opposition to, and distinction
from, the angelic nature; for though God has showed a regard to fallen men, and
not to fallen angels, and has provided a Savior for the one, and not for the
other; and Christ has assumed the nature of men, and not angels; yet not for
the sake of all men, but the spiritual seed of Abraham; and besides, it will
not be easily proved, that human nature is ever called the world: nor is the
whole body of the chosen ones, as consisting of Jews and Gentiles, here
designed; for though these are called the world, (John 6:33, 51); and are the
objects of God’s special love, and to them Christ is given, and they are
brought to believe in him, and shall never perish, but shall be saved with an
everlasting salvation; yet rather the Gentiles particularly, and God’s elect
among them, are meant; who are often called “the world”, and “the whole world”,
and “the nations of the world”, as distinct from the Jews; see Romans 11:12,
15; 1 John 2:2; Luke 12:30. Compared with Matthew 6:32. The Jews had the same
distinction we have now, the church and the world; the former they took to
themselves, and the latter they gave to all the nations around: hence we often
meet with this distinction, Israel, and the nations of the world; on those
words, ““let them bring forth their witness”, that they may be justified,
Isaiah 43:9 (say (F2) the doctors) these are Israel; “or let them hear and say
it is truth”, these are “the nations of the world”.”
A.W. Pink (1886 – 1952)
(The Sovereignty of God, Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, MI: 1999. Page 200-203)
Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident
from the passages just quoted that this verse will not bear the construction
usually put upon it. "God so loved the world." Many suppose that this
means, The entire human race. But "the entire human race" includes
all mankind from Adam till the close of earth's history: it reaches backward as
well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born.
Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Saviour came to the earth, lived
here "having no hope and without God in the world," and therefore
passed out into an eternity of woe. If God "loved" them, where is the
slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares "Who (God) in times past (from
the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their
own ways" (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that "And even as they did
not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate
mind, to do those things which are not convenient" (Rom. 1:28). To Israel
God said, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth"
(Amos 3:2). In view of these plain passages who will be so foolish as to insist
that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to
the future. Read through the book of Revelation, noting especially chapters 8
to 19, where we have described the judgments which will be poured out from
Heaven on this earth. Read of the fearful woes, the frightful plagues, the
vials of God's wrath, which shall be emptied on the wicked. Finally, read the
twentieth chapter of the Revelation, the great white throne judgment, and see
if you can discover there the slightest trace of love.
But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and
says, "World means world." True, but we have shown that "the
world" does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that "the
world" is used in a general way. When the brethren of Christ said "Show
Thyself to the world" (John 7:4), did they mean "shew Thyself to all
mankind"? When the Pharisees said "Behold, the world is gone after
Him" (John 12:19) did they mean that "all the human family" were
flocking after Him? When the Apostle wrote "Your faith is spoken of
throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8), did he mean that the faith of the
saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child
on earth? When Revelation 13:3 informs us that "all the world wondered
after the beast," are we to understand that there will be no exceptions?
These, and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term "the
world" often has a relative rather than an absolute force.
Now the first thing to note in connection with
John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus - a man who believed
that God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that
God’s love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond
the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to “regions beyond”. In other words,
this was Christ’s announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles
as well as Jews. “God so loved the world”, then, signifies, God’s love is
international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual
among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen, the term “world” is
general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. The term “world”
in itself is not conclusive. To ascertain who are the objects of God’s love
other passages where His love is mentioned must be consulted.
In 2 Peter 2:5 we read of “the world of the
ungodly”. If then, there is a world of the ungodly there must also be a world
of the godly. It is the latter who are in view in the passages we shall now
briefly consider. “For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven,
and giveth life unto the world” (John 6:33). Now mark it well, Christ did not
say, “offereth life unto the world”, but “giveth”. What is the difference
between the two terms? This: a thing which is “offered” may be refused, but a
thing “given”, necessarily implies its acceptance. If it is not accepted, it is
not “given’, it is simply proffered. Here, then, is a scripture that positively
states Christ giveth life (spiritual, eternal life) “unto the world.” Now He does
not give eternal life to the “world of the ungodly” for they will not have it, they
do not want it. Hence, we are obliged to understand the reference in John 6:33
as being to “the world of the godly”, i.e., God’s own people.
Also in one other: in 2 Cor. 5:19 we read, “To
wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”. What is meant
by this is clearly defined in the words immediately following “not imputing
their trespasses unto them”. Here again, “the world” cannot mean “the world of
the ungodly for their trespasses are “imputed” to them, as the judgment of the
Great White Throne will yet show. But 2 Cor. 5:19 plainly teaches there is a
“world” which are “reconciled”, reconciled unto God, because their trespasses
are not reckoned to their account, having been borne by their Substitute. Who
then are they? Only one answer is possible - the world of God’s people! In like
manner, the “world” in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world
of God’s people. “Must” we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It
cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell
when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human
being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God’s love
is mentioned limits it to His own people-search and see! The objects of God’s
love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ’s love in
John 13:1: “Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time
was come, that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved
His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end”. We may admit that
our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost
uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them.
[1]
Does the Bible Contain Paradox? W. Gary Crampton. https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=76
Comments
Post a Comment