John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
This is not the “elect world” of believers, as 5-Point Calvinists infer. Instead, this is the fallen world of otherwise condemned, God-hating (John 15:18) un-believers (John 3:17), whom God took pity upon, resulting in the greatest gift that He could ever give, Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son. So it was an important gift from God’s perspective, and which demands a response, so that anyone among this perishing, God-hating world that believes in Him, would have eternal life instead instead of judgment.
What one verse in the Bible is considered to be the epitome of the Gospel? John 3:16. And yet for Calvinists it is a “problem verse.” So what does that tell you about Calvinism? It is an attack upon the Gospel. Nevertheless, in the following Youtube clip, Calvinist, James White, explains why he feels that John 3:16 is generally misunderstood to be a refutation of Calvinism: Does John 3:16 debunk Calvinism? Here is the most important quote from the clip, in terms of the question: To whom was Jesus given:
Calvinist, James White, states: “He gave His only begotten Son, and here’s the purpose why He gave: The Son is given by the Father so that every believing one, notice not everyone, it’s every believing one, there is a limitation here, there is a particularity here, the Father did not give the Son for any other reason than for those in regard to those who who believe. …that’s why the Son is given.” (Does John 3:16 debunk Calvinism?, emphasis mine)
One Calvinist explains: “He gave His Son so that every believing one would not perish - and that is the manner in which He loved the world.” (CARM.org, emphasis mine)
Another Calvinist explains: “God so loved the world THAT all the believing ones would not perish.” (CARM.org, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “...we must define God’s love in accordance with the total teaching of Scripture, which includes the doctrine of election and God’s ultimate purpose for man.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.215, emphasis mine)
It also depends upon what type of Election that you are teaching. If you have an election with God the Father on account of your position in His Son, then what difficulty is there in reconciling John 3:16 with Election? The fact is that everyone needs Jesus, and there is no one that Jesus doesdn’t die for.
Erwin Lutzer also writes: “When D.L. Moody quipped, ‘The elect are the whosoever wills and the nonelect are the whosoever won’ts,’ he was right. Calvinists could not agree more.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.192, emphasis mine)
The admission that “whosoever” is drawn from a “world” pool of elect whosoever wills and nonelect whosoever won’ts, proves that the corresponding “world” pool is greater than just the whosoever wills. If the world-pool includes the wills and the won’ts, then the world means everyone, and it is these whom God loves and has given His Son for the aim of salvation.
John Goodwin explains: “...Suppose a great king having many sons, should express himself thus: ‘I so love my children, that whosoever of them shall be dutiful unto me; I will bestow principalities, dukedoms, or other great matters upon them.’ Should he not plainly imply a possibility, at least, that some of them might not prove dutiful unto him? In like manner, if the word world, in the Scripture in hand, should signify the elect, the distributive, whosoever, must needs imply that some of these elect might possibly not believe, and so perish; because believing, and not believing, and not perishing thereupon, occasions the distribution here made.” (Redemption Redeemed, p.24, emphasis mine)
Indeed, that’s the thrust of the meaning of the word “whosoever,” which even Lutzer admitted. There exists the possibility that some will and some won’t, which means that the world from which they are pulled, must also include those who might believe and those who might not, and hence the “world” according to John 3:16 cannot mean the alleged, “world of the elect,” which many Calvinists presume.
Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, comments: “The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation)....” (Chosen By God, pp.206-207, emphasis mine)
This is one of the most embarrassing interpretations that Calvinists have historically taken. It is akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’s interpretation of John 1:1 as “a god.” Even John Calvin rejected it, and yet today, we see so many Calvinists unashamedly affirming it.
John Goodwin again explains: “The world is never used in Scripture for the elect or godly part in the world, considered by themselves, or apart by others. It is used either for the wicked of the world alone, or apart by themselves, or else for both godly and wicked taken together, and as mixed one with another. It would be very strange that our Savior should use it in that by-sense, and unheard of elsewhere, in so eminent a place and passage of the gospel as that in hand, and not in the familiar and best known signification of it.” (Redemption Redeemed, p.29, emphasis mine)
Calvinists who insist that “the world” at John 3:16 really means “the elect world,” reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who insist that “was God” at John 1:1 really means “a god.” Both interpretations thoroughly disrupt these eminent places in Scripture.
Calvinists, Peterson and Williams, write: “Why is Calvinism so unacceptable in modern society? Calvinism stands for the doctrine that all of humankind is sinful, creatures turned in upon themselves at the deepest core of their being such that they will not--and cannot--make their way to God, retrieve their own lives or earn their salvation. If humankind is to be saved, God must act. God must be gracious. Human beings are utterly dependent upon the saving grace of God. And apparently, God has not acted on behalf of all. He has not chosen to be gracious to all human beings.” (Why I Am Not An Arminian, p.17, emphasis mine)
Why is Calvinism so unacceptable? He said it himself: “Not chosen to be gracious to all human beings.” This, of course, is in spite of the fact that Romans 5:15 states: “For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.” The real reason why Calvinism is so unacceptable to most Christians, of any era, is primarily because of how it betrays John 3:16, and any theology or denomination that renders John 3:16 a “problem verse,” you can keep, and Calvinism is just such a theology. Notice, also, the kind of smoke screen that is employed. The argument starts out by attributing its unattractiveness due to the biblical teaching of man’s depravity and the biblical teaching that God must intervene. Well, of course man is morally depraved and incapable of pleasing God, and cannot save himself or earn his salvation, and of course God must intervene, which is why Jesus seeks (Luke 19:10), draws (John 12:32) and knocks (Revelation 3:20), while the Holy Spirit convicts (John 16:8), pricks (Acts 26:14), pierces (Acts 2:37) and opens hearts to respond to the Gospel. (Acts 16:14) That is the essential Prevenient Grace of God in His pursuit of mankind that He so loved, according to John 3:16. God is gracious to all human beings because He sent His only begotten Son to die on a cross to save them from their sins. What could be more gracious than that? Does the Father have a greater gift than His own Son, that He has secretly withheld? The Calvinist answer is that for all but a few, God has withheld His greatest gift: Election. The real reason why Calvinism is so unpopular is because it teaches that Jesus didn’t die for the world, but for the world of the select few, and that God doesn’t love everyone. Obviously, 4-Point Calvinists are the exception. Then, of course, there are the Single Predestinationists and Double Predestinationists, which have greatly varying views on this very subject, which makes pinning down the Calvinists to one coherent thought, challenging. Some Calvinists hop Lapsarian systems when jumping from one verse to the next. Some Calvinists are still trying to figure out whether they are a Single or Double Predestinationist. However, the matter for the Arminian is far less difficult: Jesus loves you and Jesus died for you, and He wants you to be saved.
Christopher Skinner comments: “If God left us to perish, his justice would be satisfied, but his love would not. God loved the entire human race so much that he was willing to send the Lord Jesus Christ down to earth to satisfy his just demands and purchase us back for himself, and to give eternal life to those who believe on him.” (God So Loved the World)
Billy Graham writes: “In all of life there is nothing more wonderful than discovering peace with God. Step one to this discovery is realizing God’s plan--peace and life. God loves you and wants you to experience peace and life--abundant and eternal.” (The Enduring Classics of Billy Graham: The Secret of Happiness, Happiness Through Peacemaking, p.125, emphasis mine)
However, Calvinist, James White, also writes: “Surely it is part of modern evangelical tradition to say, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,’ but providing a meaningful biblical basis for this assertion is significantly more difficult.” (Debating Calvinism, p.265, emphasis mine)
Actually, it is significantly more difficult to disprove that “God so loved the world.” First and foremost, God’s wonderful plan for everyone’s life is salvation, which contrary to White, is easy to prove in the Bible, since it explicitly says so at 1st Timothy 2:3-4. God’s wonderful plan for everyone’s life is “eternal life,” as per John 3:16. Then comes a new heart (2nd Corinthians 5:17), the indwelling of God in our soul (1st Corinthians 3:16), the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22), the calling of God in our life (Romans 8:28) and the joy of being conformed to the image of Christ. (Romans 8:29) You can look at the apostle Paul’s life and ask with the Calvinist, how he inherited an alleged “wonderful plan,” given that he suffered so much for the sake of Christ, and in doing so, completely miss the fact the He received Christ, for which He considered all else as loss: “I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ.” (Philippians 3:8) This is the most wonderful part about God’s wonderful plan. But God also does indeed have plans for our welfare, because He said so: “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.’” (Jeremiah 29:11) Psalm 91 is the epitome of God’s wonderful plan.
Adrian Rogers asks: “Does God love everyone? Did Jesus die for a certain few?, for the chosen ones? Friend, can I walk up to any man on the face of this earth and tell him without stutter-stammer, apology or equivocation that God loves you? I can do that, without qualification.” (Let The Earth Hear His Voice, 2004, emphasis mine)
Adrian Rogers points out a paraphrase for John 3:16 by one of the patriarchs of Calvinism, John Owen, who said in his retranslation: “God so loved His elect throughout the world that He gave His Son to the intention that by Him, believers might be saved.” (Let The Earth Hear His Voice, 2004) This shows what a problem John 3:16 is for Calvinists, that they would have to butcher it to that degree.
James White writes: “Everyone knows John 3:16, and that’s the problem. So many are familiar with the verse that very few stop to consider the traditions that have been packed very carefully into its constant and often acontextual citation.” (Debating Calvinism, p.376, emphasis mine)
“Acontextual citation”? The context of John 3:16 is John 3:14-15, and the context for that is Numbers 21:6-9, and therefore how does Numbers 21:6-9 even remotely contradict an Unlimited Atonement?
White writes concerning John 3:16: “World does not mean ‘every single individual person’….” (Debating Calvinism, p.379, emphasis mine)
White is troubled by the popularity of John 3:16, insomuch as “tradition” teaches that the word “world” means “every single individual person.” Alright, tell us what “world” does mean:
White clarifies: “That is, it is the common meaning of world that would have suggested itself to the original readers (Jew and Gentile).” (Debating Calvinism, p.377, emphasis mine)
White concludes: “When we see the world as the entirety of the kinds of men (Jew and Gentile, or as John expresses it in Revelation 5:9, where every ‘tribe, tongue, people, and nation’ means world) the passage makes perfect sense. God’s love is demonstrated toward Jew and Gentile in providing a single means of salvation for both.” (Debating Calvinism, p.378, emphasis mine)
If “world” means “Jew and Gentile,” that is, various “kinds” of people from “every tribe, tongue, people and nation,” then what is “Jew and Gentile” except so many units of Jews and Gentiles, which is tantamount to the same thing as individuals? Therefore, God loves every individual.
White writes: “Will God truly save the world through Christ? Inserting the concept of ‘universal individualism into world in verse 16... raises real problems.” (Debating Calvinism, p.378, emphasis mine)
Why?
White writes: “How is God’s love shown for one who experiences eternal punishment by the provision of salvation for someone else?” (Debating Calvinism, p.377, emphasis mine)
Well if you reject Christ all the way to death, then you no longer receive God’s love. Instead, you receive God’s wrath. So that’s a silly argument.
White writes: “However, two things are certain. It is not the ‘world’ that Jesus says He does not pray for in John 17:9, a ‘world’ that is differentiated from those the Father has given Him: ‘I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours.’ Neither is it the ‘world’ that is arrayed as an enemy against God’s will and truth, as seen in 1 John 2:15: ‘Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him’ Obviously, the ‘world’ we are not to love in 1 John 2:15 is not the world to which God showed His love by sending His Son.” (Debating Calvinism, pp.376-377, emphasis mine)
Actually, it’s the things of the world that God does not love. In terms of actual people, yes God loves them and sent His Son in their place to die upon a cross, so that if they would believe in Him, they would not perish but have eternal life. The prayer of John 17:9 is about praying for the benefits of believers.
Arminian, John Wesley comments on John 17:9: “Verse 9. I pray not for the world - Not in these petitions, which are adapted to the state of believers only. (He prays for the world at John 17:21,23, that they may believe - That they may know God hath sent him.)” (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible)
Jerry Falwell also explains concerning John 17:9: “This does not mean that Christ is unconcerned about the unsaved (Lk 23:34). However, His prayer for sanctification, glorification, and protection is only applicable to those who belong to Him.” (Liberty Bible Commentary, p.2116)
Jesus commanded us to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44) In fact, even John Calvin taught that the “world” at 1st John 2:15 actually meant: “everything connected with the present life, apart from the kingdom of God and the hope of eternal life.” (1, 2, 3 John: Calvin/Henry, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.39) In fact, verses 16-17 states: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts…”
White concludes: “The most that can be said by means of exegesis (rather than by insertion via tradition) is that the world is shown love through the giving of the Son so that a specific, particular people receive eternal life through faith in Him.” (Debating Calvinism, p.377, emphasis mine)
Where does John 3:16 mention anything about a “specific, particular people”? Instead, the indiscriminate word “whoever” is used. Only a hard-liner can read “world” but see a “specific, particular people.”
Calvinist, George Whitefield, explains: “I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages.” (A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, emphasis mine)
In what way would God love those whom He allegedly, foreordained to “pass by” and to be “justly left of God”? Whitefield’s quote essentially changes John 3:16 to: “For God so loved a certain number.” However, Whitefield disagrees that Calvinism overthrows God’s “love” for the world:
Whitefield explains: “And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good.” (A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, emphasis mine)
While it’s compassionate of God to give rain (Matthew 5:45), that’s not the context of John 3:16. Rather, God sent His Son, which is infinitely more significant than rain. Indeed, God sent the greatest, not the least, gift that He could give, namely, His own Son: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also freely give us all things?” (Romans 8:32) After all, what is rain in comparison to allegedly having been predetermined to be passed by, left behind and predestined for hell? There isn’t a whole lot of love in that. That’s not loving less. That’s just not loving at all.
One Calvinist explains: “The love of John 3:16 is a wonderful love. But it is not the greatest love that the Bible speaks about. I say that because it is a kind of love that can still let us go to hell. I can be loved by the love in John 3:16 and still die in my sins. But I cannot be loved by the great love in Ephesians 2:4 and still die in my sins. No, by that love I have been made alive! By that love I have been born again!” (Calvinism, John 3:16, and an Arminian Friend, emphasis mine)
Are you suggesting that God gave the world His Son, but withholds something even better, namely, the grace to receive the gift of His Son? Isn’t that placing the value of grace above the value of Christ?
Calvinist, James White, writes: “And the love God has for His own people, the elect, is different than the love He shows to the creation in general or to rebel sinners outside of His grace in particular.” (Debating Calvinism, p.268, emphasis mine)
No doubt God has a special love for Christians, but how can it be said that God loves those whom He alleged, passes by, in terms of salvation?
White answers: “The biblical teaching is that God brings His elect to Himself in love while showing much patience toward those who deserve to be cut off immediately under His wrath (Romans 9:22-23).” (Debating Calvinism, p.269, emphasis mine)
In other words, “For God so loved the rest of the world that…He shows much patience by not cutting them off immediately.” Only an indoctrinated Calvinist is going to accept that as genuine love.
Calvinist, James White, comments: “No matter how one understands ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED’ (Romans 9:13), this verse alone should be enough to refute such an errant view of God’s love.” (Debating Calvinism, p.268, emphasis mine)
Now that’s is more like it! At least, here, we have some good old fashioned honesty. How can God legitimately be said to love those whom He allegedly, foreordained to Hell? Answer: He doesn’t. In fact, He hates them, just like He hated Esau. At least this is consistent with reason, though inconsistent with the Bible. In fact, the closer you get to Calvinism, the further you get from the Bible. Visit Romans 9:11 for details concerning Jacob and Esau.
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians comments: “If God creates someone in His image who can only be satisfied through an eternal relationship with Him, but only gives that person temporal blessings, this is not loving them ‘less’ - it is hating them. So I think James White is actually far more consistent here. As for being ‘obligated’ to love, that is also beside the point. My contention is not that God is ‘obligated’ to love in some legal sense; rather God simply is loving, so He loves necessarily. That’s just who He is. And if God hates a single soul by sending them to Hell unconditionally, He is simply not a loving God. Any person who is able to do that is fundamentally unloving, even if he arbitrarily saves some others. So in saying this, the Calvinist concedes that God is just not loving in His nature, which is unbiblical.” (SEA, emphasis mine)
John 3:16 is simply irreconcilable with Calvinism, and I that’s precisely why that I’ve likened the matter to a Baseball Run-down, otherwise known as a “Pickle.” Imagine that 1st Base is the scope of “the world” at John 3:16, and imagine that 2nd Base is the nature of God’s “love” according to John 3:16. If a Calvinist admits that the scope of “the world” at John 3:16 is indiscriminate and universal, just like John Calvin conceded, then the Calvinist is stuck trying to explain the Calvinist doctrine of a Limited Atonement in light of the fact that God loves everyone so much that He gave them His Son in order to die on the Cross for their sins. Some Calvinists make the mistake of thinking that they can explain it away by arguing that God has “degrees of love,” and that God can somehow genuinely love someone, in a meaningful way, whom He allegedly “passes by” for grace (otherwise known as the Calvinist doctrine of Preterition), on account of giving them “rain,” as argued by Calvinist, George Whitefield. The problem is that the love of God according to John 3:16 is not about rain, but about salvation. So the 5-Point Calvinist ultimately must race back toward 1st Base, in order to try and re-work the definition of “the world,” in such a way as not to mean everyone, indiscriminately. However, by taking the path of trying to explain that the world doesn’t mean the whole world, but only the world “of the elect,” the Calvinist is forced into also making numerous other similar substitutions, which succeeds only in turning the Bible on its ear. Accordingly, the Calvinist must re-work John 1:29 to mean that Jesus has come to take away the sin of the elect, and that at John 3:16, God so loved the world of the elect. The Calvinist must also re-work Luke 19:10 to mean that Jesus has come to seek and to save that which is elect. The list goes on and on, to the point of absurdity, but the Calvinist isn’t amused because...he’s caught in a run-down.
The problem for the Calvinist is that once he accepts the truth of 1st base, then 2nd base becomes irreconcilable with Calvinism, and at no time can he accept the truth of the Bible at both bases simultaneously. In order to make Calvinism work, the Calvinist must pick which base that he is willing to accept the truth, and which base that he is going to have to sacrifice the truth, in order to make John 3:16 compatible with Calvinism.
Luke Liechty explains: “God loved so much that He gave. It was out of His great love that God bestowed grace and mercy. Love is the impetus for the giving of Grace and Mercy. God’s love is also the impetus for chastisement as well. We err when we try to put God’s love in the box of human love. It was God’s love for Israel that prompted Him to reach out His hand all day long though being rebuffed. There were many of Israel, the Chosen, who refused and rebuffed God’s great love and as a result, will suffer an eternity of separation.”
One Calvinist answers: “Do Calvinists secretly believe that God chose them for some reason other than their need for salvation? Would I, as a Christian, believe that God chose me for some other reason than my need for salvation? Yes, I do. God chose me for His glory, for His pleasure, for His purposes. Sure I had a need for salvation. But that is not why He saved me primarily. ... In the Bible, God does not say He chose us because of our desperate need. He chose us before our need ever arose.”
Aside from misquoting Ephesians 1:4, by lopping off the basis of Election, and that being “in Christ,” Calvinists do not believe that the primary reason why God gave His Son was for their “desperate need,” but rather out of God’s “purposes.” This is why Calvinism is accused of reducing Calvary to a form of Divine Pageantry, rather than an authentic saving act. Furthermore, when examining the context of John 3:16, namely, Jesus’ analogy at John 3:14-15, as it relates to the “serpent on a standard” recorded at Numbers 21:6-9, surely God used this manner of healing as a foreshadow of Calvary, but primarily because people were dying, and Moses’ intercession upon their behalf. The problem with Calvinistic Determinism is that it’s a theory where life is a pre-written book by God, where everything unfolds according to how God wrote it. Thus, “need” no longer exists. All there is, is the Script, and everything unfolds according to how God penned it. Why Calvary? Because God penned it that way. Why the Fall? Because God penned it that way. The answer to every question becomes: That’s how God chose to write the story of life. Our desperate need for salvation ultimately becomes a mirage. And what of prayer? It’s all part of the story. What about sin? God’s story. He doesn’t necessarily agree with sin, but it was a necessary element to the story. The end result is that mankind consists of fictitious characters. Could God have found a way other than Calvary? Sure. God could have edited His script. Even Jesus becomes a fictitious character in a classic tale. All that would be real, is God Himself, the author. Without Free-Will, what is real?
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “Even if, as Arminians believe, foreknowledge does not cause anything to happen, still the future will unfold as God knows it will. Yes, even for Arminians, whatever will be, will be.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.216, emphasis mine)
This statement is due to the fact that Calvinists reject the Arminian perspective that God stands independent of time, and therefore can know the “after the fact” choices of man. Calvinists make the rules, and declare victory accordingly. Nevertheless, this quote reveals the fatalistic perspective of Calvinism. Here’s another:
Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, writes: “Predestination seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out his scenario.” (Chosen by God, p.51, emphasis mine)
Actually, Calvinistic predestination seems to cast the shadow described by Sproul. Calvinists reserve the rights to define all biblical terms, and in doing so, declare victory.
In Sproul’s testimony of conversion to Calvinism, he writes: “I no longer feared the demons of fatalism or the ugly thought that I was being reduced to a puppet. Now I rejoiced in a gracious Savior who alone was immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” (Chosen by God, p.13, emphasis mine)
Sproul adds: “When I teach the doctrine of predestination I am often frustrated by those who obstinately refuse to submit to it. I want to scream, ‘Don’t you realize you are resisting the Word of God?’ In these cases I am guilty of at least one of two possible sins. If my understanding of predestination is correct, then at best I am being impatient with people who are merely struggling as I once did, and at worst I am being arrogant and patronizing toward those who disagree with me. If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels. So the stakes are high for me in this matter.” (Chosen by God, p.14, emphasis mine)
The end result of Calvinistic Determinism, otherwise known as Theistic Fatalism, is that: For God so loved His “script,” that He produced and directed a “world” full of characters, who each act out their parts in the play. The consequence, of course, is that anyone who interacts with such characters, must also have fixed lines, and thus even Jesus’ free-will would be similarly restricted to the script.
The further you move from Calvinism, the closer you move to biblical truth. Unfortunately, this statement is coded.
- “Died for sinners” actually means that He died for the Calvinistically elect sinners.
- “Total offer of the Gospel to everybody on the planet” means that since he doesn’t know who the Calvinistically elect are, he preaches to everyone, indiscriminately.
- “Really loves the whole world” means that He loves all of the people-groups of the world.
If Jesus makes an offer of salvation, then He must have died for them, or else what is the offer? Some Calvinists reject that the Gospel involves an offer, and is just a command, and that whoever is Calvinistically elect, will respond. John 3:16 is legitimately a problem-verse for Calvinism, and the best solution is simply to drop Calvinism and embrace John 3:16 in its purest form.
Jacob Arminius writes: “The Gospel says, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16). But this doctrine declares: ‘that God so loved those whom he had absolutely elected to eternal life, as to give his son to them alone, and by an irresistible force to produce within them faith on him.’ To embrace the whole in few words, the Gospel says, ‘fulfill the command, and thou shalt obtain the promise; believe, and thou shalt live.’ But this [supralapsarian] doctrine says, ‘since it is my will to give thee life, it is therefore my will to give thee faith,’ which is a real and most manifest inversion of the Gospel.” (Arminius Speaks, p.49, emphasis mine)
In other words, the Bible says, believe and you will have life, whereas according to the inverted Gospel of Calvinism, have life and you will believe, insomuch that according to Calvinism, only when a person has life, through preemptive regeneration and an irresistible gift of faith, can one believe and be saved.
Question: Would you agree that the scope of “whosoever” must match the scope of “the world”?
Answer: The scope of “whosoever” is drawn from the pool of “the world,” so yes indeed, they must be parallel in scope. To limit the scope of the one, limits the scope of the other. For instance, if you limit the scope of “the world” to mean the living, then “whosoever” cannot include anyone in Hell. However, that is not to say that everyone living will believe, but only that if anyone does believe, they will not perish but have eternal life. Thus Arminians interpret John 3:16 to mean: For God has so pitied and had compassion upon the fallen sons of Adam, that He has given them His only begotten Son, that if anyone among them should believe in Him, they will not perish, but have everlasting life.
Question: If God has determined to save only those of the alleged, eternal flock of the Father, how can it be said that He loves the whole world?
Answer: This is a difficult question for both 4-Pointers and 5-Pointers because “passing by” people via the Calvinist doctrine of Preterition, is not real love. James 2:15-16 states: “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?’” Does Jesus declare: “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3), only to secretly deny them what is “necessary” to do so?
Calvinistic paraphrase of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world of the elect that He gave His only begotten Son to the elect, so that these would be made willing to believe, and therefore shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
Question: What is meant by the word “world” at John 3:16?
Answer: If you want to know the scope of the world at John 3:16, look to similar references at John 1:9, 1:29; 3:17 and 4:42. For instance, Jesus states: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:17) So if Jesus was not sent to judge the alleged ‘elect world’, does that mean that He was sent to judge the alleged, ‘non-elect world’? Reading the “elect” into the “world” in John’s Gospel does so much damage to the text that it’s not even worth further consideration, which is perhaps why John Calvin candidly conceded the following:
Calvin writes: “It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.148, emphasis mine)
John Calvin comments: “For faith in Christ brings life to everyone, and Christ brought life because the Heavenly Father loves the human race and wishes that they should not perish.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.76, emphasis mine)
Calvin adds: “He used the broad word ‘whoever’ to invite everyone, indiscriminately, to share this life, and also to leave unbelievers with no excuse. This is the significance of the word ‘world,’ which is used earlier in this verse. For although there is nothing in the ‘world’ which deserves God’s favor, God shows that he himself is reconciled to the whole ‘world’ as he invites everyone, without any exceptions, to have faith in Christ, which is no less than entry into life.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.77, emphasis mine)
Similarly, Calvin comments on Romans 5:18: “Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.117-118, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “Therefore Christ intends that the benefit of his death should extend to everyone; so people who exclude anyone from that hope of salvation are doing Christ a disservice.” (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.40, emphasis mine)
To recap, the “world” means “all” “without distinction,” “everyone indiscriminately,” “leave unbelievers with no excuse,” “reconciled to the whole world,” “invites everyone,” “no exceptions.” Does James White wish to charge Calvin with teaching tradition at John 3:16?
Can I truthfully tell anyone, anywhere that Jesus loves them, and that Jesus died for them? According to John 3:16, yes.
Question: How did God demonstrate His love for the world?
Answer: By giving it His Son, in order that by Him, the world might be saved.
Question: What do Calvinists teach that “the world” means at John 3:16?
Answer: Although John Calvin taught that it meant everyone indiscriminately, as well as 4-Point Calvinists, most 5-Point Calvinists believe that it means the Elect world.
Question: How can God love those whom He hardens?
Answer: Just as easily as the father of the prodigal son loved his son, when he gave him over to self-destruction. “But,” you ask, “How did the father of the prodigal son harden his heart? Lutzer explains: “Thus, to harden a man’s heart, God may have to do no more than simply to abandon him to his own desires and lusts.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.173) Despite giving him up, the father never stopped loving his son.
Question: Is “the world” to which Jesus was sent, according to John 3:17, the same “world” that God loves, according to John 3:16?
Sproul answers: “John 3:16 declares that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son into the world.” (What is Reformed Theology?, p.108, emphasis mine)
Substitute Elect world throughout these passages to see if it works:
John 3:16-18: “For God so loved the Elect world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the Elect world to judge the Elect world, but that the Elect world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
John 15:18-19: “If the Elect world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the Elect world, the Elect world would love its own; but because you are not of the Elect world, but I chose you out of the Elect world, because of this the Elect world hates you.”
John 17:14-18: “I have given them Your word; and the Elect world has hated them, because they are not of the Elect world, even as I am not of the Elect world. I do not ask You to take them out of the Elect world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the Elect world, even as I am not of the Elect world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the Elect world, I also have sent them into the Elect world.”
Question: Is there any indication from Jesus that when He said “the world” that He really meant the Elect world?
Answer: No.
Question: Does the Calvinist phrase, “the world of the elect,” ever appear in Scripture?
Answer: Never.
Question: Did God give His Son Jesus to the world due to its need for salvation, or as a token of Election for some?
Question: Who did God give His Son to, and why?
Answer: The world, because He “loved the world.” The world is the recipient of God’s gift of His Son, through which, anyone in the world who believes in Him, will receive eternal life.
Question: For what purpose, and on what condition?
Answer: That whosoever in the world that should believe in Him, will have eternal life. Eternal life is the purpose and faith is the condition.
The shell game is to get you to take your eye off of the object of the world, and place it on the object of believers, so that you will envision that God sent His Son for believers, and by extension, all to whom God knows will believe, thus implying Calvinism’s elect. In other words: “God so loved believers, because that’s who gets the benefit.” That’s the game that is being played. It’s nothing more than a parlor trick. Let me say this as clearly as I can. No one goes from John 3:16 to Calvinism. Rather, what happens is that people go to Calvinism, and then come back to John 3:16 in order to find a way around it, and you have just witnessed how they try to pull it off.
Question: Why is the 4-Point Calvinist of an Unlimited Atonement impossible?
Answer: In light of the “giving” at John 3:16 & John 6:37.
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” - God loves the world (elect & non-elect) so much that He gave His only begotten Son (i.e. John 3:16, Unlimited Atonement, Universal Provision).
John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one whocomes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” - God loves the alleged non-elect so little that He does not give them to His Son (as per the Calvinist understanding of John 6:37).
So God gives with the right hand (giving His Son to them, as per John 3:16), what He allegedly takes away with the left (not giving them to His Son, as per John 6:37). How does it makes sense to say that God gives them His Son, but does not give them to His Son? Is that bizzare or what? But that’s 4 Point Calvinism!
Rather, God so loved “the world” that He gave the world His Son, so that whosoever in the world, believes in Him, will not perish. Calvinists are trying to pull a fast one.
Either the reason for the giving is so that the believing ones would have eternal life, as per James White, or the reason for the giving is to provide a lost world with a Savior, as Jesus stated: “I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” (John 12:47) Now that the world has a Savior, whosoever in the world that believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life.
Calvinist, John Piper, states: “Christ died for sinners so that if any one of you believes on Him, you will have your sins forgiven, and will have eternal life and not perish, so that the death of Christ warrants a total offer of the Gospel to everybody on the planet, and God, in John 3:16, really loves the whole world.” (Q&A with Reporters)
In other words, “For God so loved the world...that He sent rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”?
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians comments: “For the Calvinist who wants to call God ‘loving’ to the reprobate for giving them temporal blessings’ but not eternal blessings, Jesus disagrees: ‘What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?’ (Mark 8:36)” (SEA)
