Posted on 08/01/2005 8:16:45 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
Does God So Love the World?
by: John MacArthur
Love is the best known but least understood of all God's attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.
All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but not in the way most people think. Because of the influence of modern liberal theology, many suppose that God's love and goodness ultimately nullify His righteousness, justice, and holy wrath. They envision God as a benign heavenly grandfather-tolerant, affable, lenient, permissive, devoid of any real displeasure over sin, who without consideration of His holiness will benignly pass over sin and accept people as they are.
Liberal thinking about God's love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God's wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.
We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God's righteous anger. We need to remember that God's wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.
In that regard, our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don't really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, few people really understand what God's love is all about.
How we address the misconception of the present age is crucial. We must not respond to an overemphasis on divine love by denying that God is love. Our generation's imbalanced view of God cannot be corrected by an equal imbalance in the opposite direction, a very real danger in some circles. I'm deeply concerned about a growing trend I've noticed-particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God's sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.
I am troubled by the tendency of some-often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine-who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.
The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.
Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world…") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2]
Pink was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally. Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7:6-7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4:8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same.
Nothing but God's own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love.
Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.
We must understand that it is God's very nature to love. The reason our Lord commanded us to love our enemies is "in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). Jesus clearly characterized His Father as One who loves even those who purposefully set themselves at enmity against Him.
At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Ephesians 2:4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.
But from that, it does not follow that God's attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred. Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.
Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." [3]
Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.
Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.
We are seeing today, in some circles, an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan eras. I'm very encouraged by that in most respects. A return to those historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.
We must maintain a carefully balanced perspective as we pursue our study of God's love. God's love cannot be isolated from His wrath and vice versa. Nor are His love and wrath in opposition to each other like some mystical yin-yang principle. Both attributes are constant, perfect, without ebb or flow. His wrath coexists with His love; therefore, the two never contradict. Such are the perfections of God that we can never begin to comprehend these things. Above all, we must not set them against one another, as if there were somehow a discrepancy in God.
Both God's wrath and His love work to the same ultimate end-His glory. God is glorified in the condemnation of the wicked; He is glorified in every expression of love for all people without exception; and He is glorified in the particular love He manifests in saving His people.
Expressions of wrath and expressions of love-all are necessary to display God's full glory. We must never ignore any aspect of His character, nor magnify one to the exclusion of another. When we commit those errors, we throw off the biblical balance, distort the true nature of God, and diminish His real glory.
Does God so love the world? Emphatically-yes! Proclaim that truth far and wide, and do so against the backdrop of God's perfect wrath that awaits everyone who does not repent and turn to Christ.
Does the love of God differ in the breadth and depth and manner of its expression? Yes it does. Praise Him for the many manifestations of His love, especially toward the non-elect, and rejoice in the particular manifestation of His saving love for you who believe. God has chosen to display in you the glory of His redeeming grace.
[1]Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 29-30.
[2]Ibid., 314.
[3]John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, William Pringle, trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 reprint), 123.
Adapted from The God Who Loves © 2001 by John MacArthur. All rights reserved.
• Grace to You (Thursday, July 21, 2005)
Brought to you by OnePlace.com.
I think Gill does a fine job explaining "world " here on this particular verse
Verse 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins,.... For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews:
and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:
but also for [the sins] of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles amle, "the world"; and Mlweh lk, "the whole world"; and Mlweh twmwa, "the nations of the world" {l}; See Gill on "John 12:19"; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see John 3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that hrpk Nhl Nya, "there is no propitiation for them" {m}: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say {n}, "it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, amle ylwk, "the whole world" went after him;" which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere {o} it is said, "amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";" which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place {p}, "amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;" where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said {q}, when "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), amle ylwk, "the whole world" stood up before him;" that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added {r}, "when a great man makes a mourning, amle ylwk, "the whole world" come to honour him;" i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, ygylp al amle ylwk, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent {s}; yrbo amle ylwk, "the whole world" are of opinion {t}, are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" {u}, only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world," or "the whole world," in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luke 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1 John 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins," the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1 John 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for John 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them.
God restrains NO MAN from coming to them, indeed He "permits" the non elect to choose as they will, and indeed they will ALWAYS choose as they will.
Then He doesn't actually bring it about, He only provides the circumstances and sits back to watch what happens. The individual is the one who really brings it about.
The bible is a fascinating book, and this is a great discussion we've had over these many years. We've learned a lot about the book that we'd never really thought our way through before, haven't we?
And much more to learn.
(BTW, I've made a study decision)
I think you might be mistaking information content for repentance and faith, imo. God provides all the content and the conviction and the encouragement that is necessary to fall overwhelmed in repentance and faith.
The one who resists is, though, as you say, rebelling against God's gracious offer in Christ.
"Though he doesn't actually bring it about."
Fru, you have said that God does not believe for you. Are you changing your mind on that?
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Of Course He knew, He ordained it
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
We agree on that one.
Good!
Go back and read it again. He was taking your premise to its logical conclusion, perhaps with just a touch of sarcasm.
Key word: "Then"
Nbdy, sincerely I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm thick-headed sometimes. I went back and looked at the "then" and still didn't get it.
Can you rephrase it for me?
X
BS - If God, out of love, chose to throw a rope to every person that floated by, it would demostrate His love for all mankind - He loves all mankind. All one has to do to be saved, is choose to grab the rope.
PM - The Calvinist will obviously insist that reprobates have no arms.
If we are to continue with the analogy appropriately, Calvinist would more likely say that none of the people have arms (elected and unelected alike) and that God lassos the elect. God allows the unelected to carry on their wayward course.
Conversely, the Arminian stance would be more as PM describes. Those not predestined to Christ have no arms - only the believers.
I do not think so, you think God fore-knew what SHE willed to do
I believe God knew what He would do. That is a BIG gap
Perhaps you can answer why God even made the waterfall of destruction, especially since He created all the people that will float by, and drown or be saved, by His own creation?
Nope. The difference here is one of efficacy. If faith will without fail always come about as the result of God's work in them, then it can be said God brought that faith about as He was the determining factor in its efficacy (by simple virtue of His choice to do so).
I don't think God is a she.
????
Maybe God is both..or neither!!
You are elected from the standpoint of eternity. You are saved from the standpoint of time. There was a point in time when you were saved. If you are like me, then you can name the very date and hour. There was a point "in time" when Christ took up residence in you.
There was no point "in time" when you were elected.
(Courtesy Alamo Girl Ping)
Then what you are saying is that you did not believe for yourself, but that God believed for you.
He did not give you arms to grab, but instead dragged you kicking and screaming from the stream. Correct?
So when Jesus (a Jew) says to Nicodemus (a Jewish ruler) that "God so loved the 'world'" He was actually telling him that God loved the Gentiles, and didn't come to condemn the Gentiles but to save them, if you follow Gill's tortured logic.
I find it interesting, that while a lot of people can discuss/argue over why someone was or was not pulled from the stream prior to being swept over the waterfall of destruction, no one will explain why there is a waterfall of destruction, in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.