What Wondrous Love!
A bride wakes up the day after her wedding, and excitedly remembers that today is her first day as a wife! She peers across the bed at her beloved husband, still sleeping peacefully. After a few moments he slowly opens his eyes and gazes back at her.
"Did you know I love you?," he says softly.
She smiles at him. "You do?" she replies in mock skepticism.
"Yes, I love you," her husband says firmly, "just like I love everybody else."
Ouch! Ooo! Not good!
Bad news. Bad. Bad. Bad. Boy, is he in trouble now!
As foolish as such a comment may sound, it is no more foolish than a notion held by many people today. What notion you ask? Have you ever heard someone say one of the following:
"God loves everybody!"
"We're all God's children!"
Now the Bible does indicate that God attributes a general value to mankind. He created mankind. He makes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. His Law applies to all people at all times. He has given each person a conscience. He has made man of one blood. He is no respecter of the person of the wealthy. He has bestowed general grace upon all men.
But is this general value the same as the love that God has for His Bride the Church? (See Ephesians 5:23–32.) Does the Good Shepherd love the goats and wolves as He does the sheep? Does the Farmer love the tares as He does the wheat? Does the Heavenly Father love bastards as He does His children?
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." ~ Hebrews 12:6–8From this passage we see that God reserves His love for His children, and one way He demonstrates His love is by disciplining His children. A bastard, on the other hand, who is not loved by God, does not receive discipline because he is not God's child.
In the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus Christ the Glorious Groom directly refused to pray for everyone. He excluded His prayers for His Bride:
"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. . . . Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" John 17:9, 20.So it must be. If God loved everyone, then in effect, God's love would be meaningless.
If everything was beautiful, then beauty would be meaningless. A garbage dump would be just as pretty as a rose garden. If everyone was rich, then wealth would be meaningless. The poor man would have as much as the rich man. If everyone was physically strong, then strength would be meaningless. The gentle lady would be just as mighty as the he-man.
It is no coincidence that this egalitarian notion that God loves everybody bears so much resemblance to the thinking of post modernism, Communism, and feminism. They are the natural product of a society where the Church teaches that God loves everybody.
If God loves everyone, then God's love is meaningless. Love by its very definition is special affection. Thus, saying God loves everybody is a self-contradictory statement. In effect, it is saying, "God has special affection toward no one."
Put another way, as a villian in a recent Pixar film said, ". . . and when everyone's super, no one will be."
In contrast to this notion of God's love, is the reality of God's personal love for His children. The Lord of Heaven hand-picked each of His children before the dawn of time. (See John 6:37; Act 13:28.) If you are a true Christian today, then you are one of those who God personally knew even before you were born and ordained to be His child. You were not just one of the great collective. You, [fill in your name here], were chosen in the good pleasure and love of God.
"[H]e hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." ~ Ephesians 1:4–5Isn't that an awesome thought? What wondrous love is this! How wondrous that God loves me! Me! Not just me as one in the world, but me personally. How much sweeter is the thought of this love.
Today, may the Lord's Bride awake with the knowledge that we alone possess the love of our faithful Groom, Christ Jesus.
posted by Nathaniel the Darnell @ 12:22 AM
68 Comments:
Nathaniel, I'm sorry to hear that your Dad doesn't love you. After all, following your logic, his special affection is only for your Mom, since he chose to marry her.
I say that to highlight the false choice you've presented. You're arguing that either God loves everyone equally, or He only loves His children. But saying that God loves everyone does not mean His relationship with a non-Christian is identical to His relationship with a Christian. He has shown a degree of unconditional love to everyone, but some have rejected Him and do not experience the fullness of His love towards the bride of Christ.
And before anyone raises limited atonement, I will add that I believe Scripture teaches the universal love of God even if you accept limited atonement (which I do not). I've detailed this on my blog before: http://www.xanga.com/theharmonyguy/442559281/universal-love.html
I realize I was rather blunt here, but this is an important issue that I feel strongly about. To say God has no love for the world (that is, everyone) not only cheapens the Gospel ("Good news - God might love you!"), but affects our doctrine on the very character of God. God's love is not rendered meaningless by being universal - quite the contrary.
Hey, Joey -
Thanks for your candid comments.
I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. I thought I made myself fairly clear that I do believe God attributes a value to all mankind. (See the tenth paragraph in the post.) My point, and the point the Scriptures I quoted make, is that this value for mankind in general is not the love God reserves for His Church.
Your question about my Dad loving my mom but not me goes outside the analogy that Scripture makes. Certainly, your Dad and my Dad love us and our mothers. But if your Dad loved you and your Mom the same as everybody, then his love for you would be no better than his love for the stranger on the street. His love would effectively be meaningless.
If you don't think God's love is rendered meaningless by it being universal, then can you present a logical or Scriptural argument for your belief?
I agree with you that this is a crucial issue because it influences our understanding of the character of God. My point is that if you believe God is not selective in His love, then you cannot appreciate his personal love for you. A culture that embraces the notion that God loves everybody will eventually be sucked into Unitarianism, Communism, and post-modernism, and we have seen that demonstrated in the western world over the past two hundred years.
Nathaniel
If you intended to say that God does love the lost, but that this love is different in kind and/or degree than His love for the Church, then I think your statements are in need of clarification and qualification. Specifically, comments like these: "If God loved everyone, then in effect, God's love would be meaningless." My conclusion from a statement like that is, "ergo, God does not love everyone." That's very different from saying "God loves the world, but in a different way from how He loves the Church."
I am not saying that God's love is equally universal, that there is no distinction between His love for the world and His love for the Church. But rather than treat His love for the world as "attributing value" and not calling it love, I think it important to emphasize how much God does love the world. This love is more amazing to me in that He even loves those who reject Him. Loving those who love you is one thing, but showing love to those who do not return the affection is even more extraordinary.
Since the universality of God's love is not a black-and-white proposition (i.e., He love for His bride or no love at all) but rather involves degrees and kinds (i.e. His love for the world is distinct from His love for the Church, but still love nonetheless), it is not rendered meaningless. Following your analogy: If everyone were rich, I agree that wealth would be meaningless. But if there are degrees of wealth, it retains its meaning.
The link I provided to my blog gives a Scriptural basis for God's love towards the world.
I hope this is clear. As I said, if your intent was to point out a distinction between God's love for the world and His love for the Church, the impression I received from your presentation (and I don't think I'm alone in this) was that God's love is solely reserved for the Church.
"But if your Dad loved you and your Mom the same as everybody, then his love for you would be no better than his love for the stranger on the street. His love would effectively be meaningless."
Right, but his love towards me and his love towards my mother are different, and that does not render either meaningless.
Hi, Joey -
I'm not sure why Blogger keeps duplicating my comments. I've deleted the duplicants from my last remark.
You're right. I'm not saying that God merely loves the Church in a different degree than he does everybody else. I'm not saying that God loves everybody else at all. My terms "attributing value" are deliberate terms. The Bible says that God loves His Church. It says that God does not love those who are not of His Church.
Again, Hebrews 12:6–8:
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."
The implication is plain. God only loves His sons, and so He only chastens His sons. If God doesn't chasten a person, then He does not love that person.
II Timothy 2:19–20 provides an analogy to the type of value God places upon those outside of the Church:
"However God's firm foundation stands, having this seal, 'The Lord knows those who are his,' and, 'Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.' Now in a large house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of clay. Some are for honor, and some for dishonor."
God values a person who is not His child as we might a vessel unto dishonor. We value a trash can, but we do not love a trash can.
If you want an example of God loving those who do not always return love, you need look no further than God's own people. God's people have often disregarded the love of God. In fact, the only examples I can think of in Scripture where God rebukes somone for not returning His love is where God is addressing His people. Those rebukes are not directed to the world at large. That is probably because God doesn't love the world at large.
Finally, once again your analogy about how my Dad loves my mother as opposed to how he loves me goes outside of the analogies of Scripture. We could compare the love my Dad has for my Mom to the type of love God has for Christ, and compare the love my Dad has for me to the love God has for His Church. But to make the everybody a part of the "family of God" is a plain contradiction of Scriptures such as Hebrews 12. Again, it also make God's love meaningless.
If you want to reason through analogy, why don't you argue within the analogies that God provides in His Word?
Nathaniel
Excellent post, Nathaniel. I also am pleased to see how well you are able to respond to the comments of others. You're a true Christian gentleman.
Mr. Harmony Guy, I think you have some good points. I can understand your point of view. However, I think Nathaniel is correct when he points out that you are "arguing outside the analogies of Scripture". Please study the Scriptures he has given, and carefully consider their implications. Keep up the good discussion!
Nathaniel, I was not in any way basing my doctrine on analogy - as I said, that was a rhetorical device to illustrate a point. I was not trying to imply that those outside the Church are part of the "family of God". I was demonstrating that there can be different forms of love towards different people.
"The implication is plain. God only loves His sons, and so He only chastens His sons. If God doesn't chasten a person, then He does not love that person."
No, the implication is not plain - once again, you're presenting a false choice. You're saying that the love referred to in Hebrews 12:6 is the only possible love God would have for a person, therefore those who aren't chastened are not loved, period. Is it not possible that Scripture elsewhere teaches of a love that God has for all mankind?
"It says that God does not love those who are not of His Church."
Where does Scripture say that directly? You've inferred it from Hebrews 12, as I've already addressed, but I would like to see a passage which actually says this.
I refer you once again to my blog post on God's universal love. I simply link to it because its length is not conducive to pasting here. In that article I present Scriptural evidence for God's love towards the world first without resorting to universal atonement, and then made much clearer in light of universal atonement. (In the latter section I deal with some of the major passages used in support of limited atonement.)
When I speak of God's love for the world, I am speaking of something much higher than the value we place on a trash can. What does that perspective do to the Gospel, much less the character of a God who instructs us to love our enemies?
Great Post Nathaniel.
I think that Christ very well characterized love in John 14:21 when he said, (quoting from memory, if it's not word perfect I apologize in advance) "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will make manifest myself unto him."
So, according to that passage, God the Father loves those who are the lovers of Christ, or his saved. Because if he loved EVERYBODY, what would be the need for the second half of the passage?
Good post.
In Christ, John.
By the way, MrHarmonyGuy, I do understand what you are trying to say, but I think that the scriptures are clear on a few things; God loves his own, God hates the wicked, and there is no neutral ground. (refs; 1'st John 5:1, Deuteronomy 22:5, and Luke 11:23, off the top of my head, but I know there are others).
In other words, I understand the desire to make God 'fair' in a sense, but I don't believe it's entirely within his descriptions in scripture to be fair. God certainly does place a value on mankind in several ways; We are in his image. We are his creation. We are created for His good pleasure. (Revelation 4:11 makes at least a couple of those points.)
I'm not a big student of theology, but I believe that the term 'abomination' in passages such as Deuteronomy 22:5 are pretty plain that God hates some folks. I think it is pretty hard to hate and love at the same time.
Sola Scriptura,
~ John.
Nathaniel - I agree with Joey that you presented a false choice with your analogy about love. But let's not even base this on logic or analogy. Let's look at a VERY simple text of Scripture, John 3:16. "For God so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotton Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Now, I know that the typical response is to say that this is the "World of the Elect." Yet this can never be deduced from the plain meaning of the text. If I were a first century Greek reading the Gospel of John I would look at that straightforward passage and say "You know, I think God loves the Elect"? Or would I say, praise the Lord God loves everybody! That is the point of the text. The ONLY reason to reinterpret this passage is to squeeze the text into a preconceived theological grid. It is dangerous to interpret Scripture on the basis of our theological presuppositions. God does love everybody, Nathaniel, and He died for all.
God Bless,
Stephen
I would like to add these strong words for consideration. But let me hasten to point out that these are not my own, but merely the words of a great man of God who has gone on before us.
"I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! may the Lord save you from the voice of the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error."
Charles Spurgeon,
Five Point Calvinist
John: I'm certainly not trying to make God "fair," and on my blog I did note the issue of God's hatred in Scripture. I assure you that my understanding on this issue has come from study of the Scriptures.
I also made a case on my blog for general atonement, as God's love for the world must follow if such a doctrine is true. As Stephen pointed out, there is no textual basis for interpreting John 3:16 as referring to the elect - for those interested in more details, they're once again in the post I linked to before. (Not trying to be a broken record... :)
1. For the record, I don't believe Nathaniel ever stated that God hated anybody without reason.
2.God explicitly explains in scripture his reasons for hating individuals. Thus, I would deduce when reading John 3:16, after God's passages about how much he hates adultery, sodomy, liars, theives, idolaters, blasphemers of his name, etc, that when he says he loved 'the world', he speaks in so far as his creation is concerned, not the souls of men. Because God also explains that it is the soul of the wicked and violent man that he hates. I think God gives good cause for his hatred.
3.The passage says that 'Whosoever believeth in him' should not perish, but have everlasting life. Moments later, Christ states that those who 'believe not' will be condemned. God's love is condemnation to wickedness, because God's love is perfect righteousness. God, by good and necessary consequence of previous passages in scripture where God states his utter and extreme hatred for wicked men and sinfulness, cannot mean that he loves every soul when he said that 'God so loved the world'.
So, in other words, Stephen, when you stated, "I would look at that straightforward passage and say "You know, I think God loves the Elect"? Or would I say, praise the Lord God loves everybody!, don't leave God's other scriptures out of your mind.
For example, Christ tells us to 'love our enemies'. Taken alone, that passage could form a type of pacifism, but taken with other scriptures about warfare, and an understanding that throughout scripture, the righteous hate the wicked and their deeds, we can deduce that Christ was not talking about a moral enemy, but rather a social enemy, possibly limited to within the body of Christ.
The same can be stated on the passage of God's love for the world, I believe.
5. Finally gentleman, I take my leave. This is Nathaniels blog, and I probably should not clutter it with my opinions. I put the issue to rest now, unless Nathaniel ask that I continue.
And in the meantime,
Soli Deo Gloria.
~ John Moore
Scott: Thank you for your kind comments to both me and Joey, and for your exhortations. Good to hear from you, brother!
John: Welcome! I've been impressed with your Scripturally-centered arguments. You've made great points. I especially am grateful that you pointed out John 14:21.
That passage also illustrates that God loves those who love Him and keep His commandments (the Church). The plain implication is that God does not love those who do not love Him and do not keep His commandments. If it were otherwise, then God saying He loved a certain group would be pointless.
Stephen: Thank you for the fine quote by Spurgeon. I'm glad no one in this forum is suggesting that we should tell "sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ." Rather, the idea that God only loves His Church provides greater incentive for a sinner to repent.
Joey has seemed to be making the puzzling argument that if we were to tell people, "God might love you", that would somehow remove an incentive for sinners to repent. To the contrary. People want what they do not think they already have. Thus, telling someone that they can only have assurance of the love of God by repenting of their sin and living in obedience is a greater incentive for one to repent.
That is why II Peter 1:10 says "[G]ive diligence to make your calling and election sure."
Regarding your remarks about John 3:16, you said: "It is dangerous to interpret Scripture on the basis of our theological presuppositions." Very well. Thus, please do not interpret John 3:16 based on your own presuppositions. The verse says "the world"; it does not say "the world of humans." The plainest meaning of the word "world" would include the trees, the mountains, the humans, the cattle, the ants, the fish, the birds, the rodents, and the bacteria.
Don't you feel special that God loves you as He does bacteria? (Yes, I am being facetious.) The fact is that we each use our presuppositions to interpret John 3:16, Stephen. You do it as everyone else. Presuppositions are inescapable. You have certain presuppositions that make you think the word "world" should be limited to the world of humans.
I have presuppositions as well that influence the way I understand John 3:16—presuppositions based upon some of the Scriptures I have already mentioned and others. On the other hand, you have not shared any other Scriptures that support your presuppositions.
For further clarification, Joey:
Even when speaking in terms of degree, you still are insisting that God loves everyone. However, love by its definition means special affection. If God loves everyone, then there is no way that this affection even of the lowest degree can be "special."
For something to be special, there must be something that is not special. But if God loves everyone, then who is not special? In other words, if God loves everyone, then who does He not love?
Thus, as said before, the idea that God loves everybody (whether absolute or relative), is self-contradictory. Love for everyone is love for no one.
Just as in every competition, there are winners and losers. There may be a first, second, and third place, but there are still winners and losers. Otherwise, being a "winner" in pointless.
Nathaniel
P.S. I have read you post on your blog, and as you said it is very lengthy. Thus, I do not have time presently to respond to it thoroughly. Lord willing, I hope to address the post in the future.
Thank you for taking the time to read my perspective, Nathaniel. And thank you for clarifying your perspective.
I don't intend to continue in this discussion any further for the moment, but I did want to note one point regarding your response to Stephen. The plain meaning of John 3:16 would not include the world of cattle and bacteria because of the next two words in the verse: "that whosoever..." The passage is quite obviously referring to people, and thus it would not be the plain sense to say "world" refers to every aspect of earthly creation.
Nathaniel - I appreciate your thoughts and thank you for helping me to clarify my own views. I don't intend to respond any further after this comment, but will close the "canon" of my thoughts on the matter here.
I think a couple parting thoughts are in order...
You mentioned that I did not cite verses other than John 3:16 to support my view. That is correct, I did not. Nor do I intend to. John 3:16 is powerful in its simplicity. If a person cannot understand the truth of God's universal and unconditional love from this easy text they will never get it, no matter how many verses are supplied.
Second, let me deal with the matter of presuppositions (as they relate to John 3:16). It is true that I approach the text with certain presuppositions that affect my interpretation of the word "world." My basic presupposition is that the word must carry its normal meaning. My presupposition is based on a grammatical, historical understanding of the Greek text. What is yours based upon? We are supposed to exegete the Scriptures, letting God speak to us with His words. You have engaged in a classic case of eisegesis, allowing your theology to mold your interpretation of the "world." This is putting the cart before the horse. I am simply trying to let the passage, in its plain, normal meaning, speak directly to my heart. THEN, and only then can I reach a theological conclusion.
I appreciate the discussion we've had, Nathaniel (and all others). I realize that I will probably never change your mind, and that's ok. That's not my job. I would just urge you, my brother, that (while still holding to your view of God's love), you never allow this idea to have a negative impact upon your evangelism.
God Bless.
Stephen (the moderately worthwhile) Trashcan
Joey & Stephen:
Discussion with you two brothers in the Lord is always sure to be thought-provoking and straight-forward. Although we do not always agree, I am grateful for these opportunities for us to discuss matters of great importance as men.
Stephen, please remember that even I would not consider a brother in the Lord (a vessel unto honor) a trashcan. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. :-)
You seem to feel very confident that your understanding of the word "world" is based on a "grammatical, historical understanding of the Greek text" and yet I don't recall you presenting any evidence of Greek grammar or history in your comments.
You may call my view eisegesis, but remember that I grew up thinking as you do. I was predisposed to think as you do. Only as I studied the full context of Scripture have I come to my current understanidng on this issue. Over time that "full context" will likely season future blog posts.
Joey, I don't see why we must assume that "whosoever" in John 3:16 is referring to the "world" Christ mentioned earlier in the sentance. I understand why many people assume the two are referring to the same group, but I do not see how this is grammatically necessary.
However, if you think the word "whosoever" is a pronoun that must grammatically refer to the word "world" because it follows it, then perhpas you can shed some light on this passage:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"
In this sentence, the pronoun that immediately follows the word "faith" is translated "that." If you think a pronoun must refer to the last noun that preceded it, it would seem the word "that" and "it" are standing in the place of the word "faith." Thus, we could read the verse:
"For by grace are we saved through faith, and that faith not of yourselves: that faith is a gift of God."
The meaning of the passage shifts dramatically under this interpretation, meaning that not merely is the "grace" not of ourselves, but even the ability to have faith in God and His atonement is not of ourselves. Of course, if you insist that a pronoun must always refer to the noun preceding it, then this would seem to be the necessary way to interpret this passage.
All fun brain-busters aside, it has been a growing experience to talk through tough issues with you men.
Nathaniel
All I meant was that the verse was obviously talking about people, not animals or bacteria. Thus treating "the world" as referring to people and not animals and bacteria is in fact the natural sense. I mentioned "that whosoever" not to make a direct equation, simply to show the verse is talking about human beings and thus your argument about "the world" naturally referring to animals and bacteria wouldn't make sense in this particular context. That was all. :)
I haven't had time to read thoroughly through the comments, but the logic in the original post seems to go something like this...
If everything is special then nothing would be special. Love, by definition, is special. If God loved everyone then God's love would not be special it would be meaningless. God's love is not meaningless, therefore God does not love everyone. And scripture is not understood rightly unless it is understood in a manner consistent with this unassailable logic.
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:8
If God's love is not universal, why did God love you while you were still a sinner?
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2
If God doesn't love the whole world why did He carry their sins on the cross?
One thing I noticed from the comments was a place where Nathaniel said, "Finally, once again your analogy... outside of the analogies of Scripture." Okay... perhaps, but where does scripture ever compare the love of the Father for His Only Begotten Son to that of a husband for his wife? That was the analogy Nathaniel used to correct the analogy he considered unscriptural (and he was commended for this). There might be some obscure passage that I'm forgetting about, but I can't remember this analogy ever being used in scripture.
Your clarification has been noted, Joey. Let's say we took the same basic gramatical structure of John 3:16 and swapped out the key terms for other key terms as in this example:
For I so enjoyed Outback Steakhouse that I went, that whosoever might buy me a blooming onion should not be my enemy but my everlasting friend.
Just as in this sentance "Outback Steakhouse" has nothing to do with the term "whosoever", the term "world" does not necessarily have anything to do with the term "world."
Nathaniel
Coming back guys. I know I promised I wouldn't, but... Well. I couldn't resist. ;)
It is a good discussion, and I think it's marvelous how everybody has maintained a loving attitude toward one another while discussing these things. It is critical to rightly divide the word of truth, that we don't decide to kill each other mid-sentence.
Nathaniel: I looked up the greek, and the word for world seems to be Kosmos. The strongs defines it this way: NT:2889
orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):
It seems to be used in a creation sense, but it does imply inhabitants. So I'm not sure what that means to your analogy, but I thought I'd put it there for reference.
Eric Thanks for bringing scriptures into the argument. I lived in Alaska for fourteen years without a Pastor, other than my Father. We didn't have any books of Theology. Just a Bible, a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, and a Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Of course, we didn't get all of the systematics of the Bible right away, but over 14 years, we came so close to a reformed theology, that we were thought of by our Pastor as long time Reformed Covenantal Presbyterians. Of course, we had to ask him what all that meant. ;)
Anyway, back to the scriptures.
You quote Romans 5:8. I agree with that. All men have sinned. Even the elect, decreed to be the Bride of Christ before the foundation of the world. However, the elect were decreed by God to be the Bride of Christ before the foundation of the world. We haven't a clue who they are, while they were yet sinners. But God does. If anything, this is a testimony to his election, not just to his love. Onward though, I must point you to this passage. It is lengthy, so I had to look it up and quote it this time.
Rom 9:10-14
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
God says here that he loved one, hated another. Why? I understand his hatred for Esau. His hatred for all mankind to me makes perfect sense. We are a fallen creation that despises him and his word! Neither had sinned, no, but Esau was a Son of fallen Adam, cursed with the lust of the heart, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.
The mystery of the passage is NOT that he hated Esau, but that he LOVED Jacob.
Today, it a very liberal dispensationalist, it seems wrong for us to think that God might hate things. We've even invented taglines, and given them to unbelievers as ammunition against repentence. Here this; 'God hates the sin, but loves the sinner'. I've heard that from unbelievers before. It comes from a logic that God just loves everyone. But nowhere in scripture does he say he loves all the individuals of the earth. He says he loves his creation. He says he loves the righteous man. He also says he hates breakers of the ten commandments. There is a specific passage dealing with God's hatred for breakers of every one of his ten commandments.
Coming into John 3:16, a NEW book in the bible, with the presupposition from the Old Testament (which is what I would have been reading all my life, were I hearing Jesus speak that day) that God hates wicked men, I would have perfectly understood the word world not to mean every individual inhabitant of earth, but his creation as a whole.
And now I must go have lunch. But I'll try to be back before long for 1 John 2:2. It's a very powerful scripture, and I think it has a deeper meaning than we sometimes realize.
TheHarmonyGuy, I read your blog, and while I think many points were very valid, I don't think it's wise to throw out a blanket statement like, 'to hate only means to love less'. I mean, you may be right, but I think clarification via greek and hebrew is absolutely necessary when challenging the foundational meaning of a passage like that.
God Bless!
~ In Christ, John.
John,
You seem to be saying that God loved you while you were still a sinner only because He knew that you were elect. But how did He demonstrate this love for you? By dying for you, right? Are you the only one Jesus died for? No, of course not – He also died for the elect, right? Did Jesus die only for the elect? No. Scripture does not equivocate on this point. Jesus died not only for the sins of the elect, but also for the sins of the whole world. So, if God demonstrates His love for you by dying for your sins, and God died for the sins of the whole world; then we must conclude that God demonstrated the same love for both the elect and the non-elect when Jesus died on the cross.
Nathaniel,
I noticed that you alluded to Matthew 5:45 where it says that the Father makes His sun to shine and His rain to fall on the just and the unjust, but you were unwilling to call this "love." Instead you prefer to call this "common grace." There is nothing inherently wrong with your designation, but it should be noted that in the passage to which you alluded Jesus explicitly calls this common grace love, attributes love of enemies to the Father, and commands us to emulate Him in that regard.
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ...You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:44-48
So, if God demonstrates His love for you by dying for your sins, and God died for the sins of the whole world; then we must conclude that God demonstrated the same love for both the elect and the non-elect when Jesus died on the cross.
I don't believe so. Because Jesus came that 'Whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life'. Not for the world.
If Christ had died for the sins of the world, I maintain that there would be no just reason for hell, but for satan and his legion. Christ could not die for the sins of the world, and his death have no effect on the world. If he were to do so, his death would be cheap. It would become unaffective. And if you say that his death is made effective by our belief in it, then is it not 'I think, therefore I am' applied to the cross?
It's interesting you reference Matthew 5:44-48. However, I think that the broadly accepted view of that verse is completely wrong. Christ would not contradict himself. In the Psalms and Proverbs, he wrote continually of the hatred that the righteous man has for the wicked. The righteous man may have been a type of Christ himself, or it may have been quite literally a righteous man. I think that the answer is both.
When Christ speaks of loving your enemies, he certainly means within the body. It also makes sense when considering that he was speaking to a people with many sects and dissentions within the body. He mentions pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. He said ""I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. . . . Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"
Based upon that, it seems that Christ is obvious that those HE prays for are within the body. I think it makes sense, considering the old testament teaching, and Christ's words, that he was speaking completely about an inter-body dispute.
I'm not much for theological discussions, mostly for my own ignorance, but this one is very interesting. I hope I have not offended you in any way (you certainly have not offended me) but sometimes it's hard to carry my happy, cheerful personality through text. :-) Forgive me.
I'm interested in hearing back from you, Eric. I like your use of scripture. That is a good practice. I should do that more often myself.
~ John.
On I John 2:2:
There is one passage more than any other which is appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). This is the passage which, apparently, most favours the Arminian view of the Atonement, yet if it be considered attentivily it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.
In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with "and" necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from Bagster's Interlinear: "Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous". It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was twofold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God's children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of 1 John 2:1 and throughout 1 John 2:2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an "Advocate with the Father"; second, that this Advocate is "the propitiation for our sins". Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an "Advocate", for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation ("and") with "the Advocate"!
In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament which speak of "propitiation", be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Rom. 3:25 we read that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in his blood". If Christ is a propitiation "through faith", then he is not a "propitiation" to those who have no faith! Again, in Heb 2:17 we read, "To make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb 2:17, R.V.).
In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.
In Ga 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i.e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad" (Jas 1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion" (1 Pet. 1:1, R.V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles.
Some of the evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows.
(a) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes ... and our hands have handled". How impossible it would have been for the Apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!
(b) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning" (1 John 2:7). The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ — in proof compare 1 John 1:1; 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.
(c) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him from the beginning" (1 John 2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.
(d) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:18,19). These brethren to whom John wrote had heard from Christ himself that Antichrist should come (see Matt. 24:1-51). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins" he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers. {a}
In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51, 52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die". Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John's:
"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins". "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation".
"And not for ours only". "And not for that nation only".
"But also for the whole world" — That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad".
In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if he is the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of 1 John 2:2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Confirmatory of "not for ours (Jewish believers) only, but also for the whole world" — Gentile believers, too; compare John 10:16; 17:20.
In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col 1:5,6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle's obvious meaning is that, the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Rom. 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world". The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Rev. 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world." But again in this expression cannot be understood as a universal one, for Matt. 24:24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot deceive God's elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.
In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The bloodshedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God dishonouring thought.
However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice, to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Saviour, but one who "shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied" (Isa 53:11). These are not our words, but the infallible assertion of him who declares, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isa 64:10). Upon this impregnable rock we take our stand. Let others rest on the sands of human speculation and twentieth century theorising if they wish. That is their business. But to God they will yet have to render an account. For our part we had rather be railed at as a narrow minded, out of date, hyper-Calvinist, than be found repudiating God's truth by reducing the divinely efficacious atonement to a mere fiction.
{a} It is true that many things in John's Epistle apply equally to believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Christ is the Advocate of the one, as much as of the other. The same may be said of many things in the Epistle of James which is also a catholic, or general epistle, though expressly addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
— A.W. Pink,
Appendix D,
The Sovereignty of God
Thanks, John... I do appreciate your happy, cheerful personality, even in the discussion of such weighty topics. :)
Because Jesus came that "Whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Not for the world.
You are assuming that if Jesus came for "whosoever" in one sense, then He could not possibly have come for "the world" in any sense. I believe this is a false dilemma.
If Christ had died for the sins of the world, I maintain that there would be no just reason for hell, but for Satan and his legion.
We must not assume that because Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, the whole world is ultimately going to be saved. Conversely we must not assume that because some will be eternally lost, Jesus is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. We have a very hard time reconciling these two things, but that doesn’t make it safe or right to assume that 1 John 2:2 means something other than what it says.
Christ would not contradict himself. In the Psalms and Proverbs, he wrote continually of the hatred that the righteous man has for the wicked... When Christ speaks of loving your enemies, he certainly means within the body.
If we encounter a passage in Psalms where the psalmist asks God to crush his enemies or boasts that he hates God’s enemies, such expressions are not Divine commands. The Psalms are not Laws; they are prayers, and should be read as such. The Proverbs are not Laws; they are wise sayings, and should be read as such. Divinely inspired, yes, but that does not make them Law.
Even if we granted that those books should be read as Law, we would need to produce a passage that says in the imperative voice, "Hate your enemies." Barring that there is no contradiction with the passage in Matthew 5.
He mentions pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. He said "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but them which thou hast given me; for they are thine... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"
Based upon that, it seems that Christ is obvious that those HE prays who are within the body.
When Christ speaks of loving your enemies, he most certainly means enemies, without any regard for whether they are inside or outside "the body." Jesus says, "and pray for those who persecute you," in Matthew 5. In John 17 His prayer is limited to the elect. The fact that His prayer in John 17 is limited to the elect does not mean that our prayer in response to Matthew 5 must also be limited to the elect. I believe this is a non-sequitur.
The problem Nathaniel’s argument encounters in Matthew 5 is the fact that Christ commands us to love our enemies because our heavenly Father loves His enemies. And even though Nathaniel would prefer to call this "common grace," Christ calls it "love."
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 2:1-2
Pink argues from 1 John 2:1 that Christ is the propitiation only for the believer because only the believer has Christ as an advocate with the Father. While it is true that only the believer has Christ as an advocate with the Father, this does not negate the fact that Jesus Christ is the propitiation also for the sins of the whole world. Pink chooses the emphasize the conjunctions that support his argument, and ignore the conjunctions detracting from his argument. This is pure smoke and mirrors.
Pink then tells us that Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17 are in direct conflict with 1 John 2:2 unless we read the latter passage to mean something other than what it plainly says. This is not even close to an accurate portrayal of Hebrews 2:17. In the Romans passage Paul says that Christ is a propitiation through faith in His blood. The fact that the propitiation in Christ is received through faith does not contradict the fact that the propitiation is for the sins of the whole world. Pink is so strongly opposed to the plain understanding of 1 John 2:2 that he is willing to imposing conflict on the text of Scripture where none actually exists.
Pink then launches a lengthy attempt to persuade us that John was writing only to Jewish Christians. How do we know this?
A) Because Paul called John an apostle to the circumcised.
This should not be dignified with a response. Of course, an apostle to the circumcised could not possibly be addressing a Gentile or a mixed congregation… even from his residence in Ephesus!
B) Because John says our eyes have seen and our hands have handled Christ, and he could not have said that to Gentiles.
Pink cannot demonstrate that plural in this case is a reference to John and his readers. It is far more likely that John is referring to himself and the company of apostles who had walked with Jesus every day for three years. It is far less likely that he is referring to himself and Jewish believers.
C) The apostle tells his readers that they had a particular commandment from the beginning. Pink simply asserts that this means the beginning of Christ’s public ministry.
Again… there couldn’t possibly be any other meaning.
D) Pink takes the phrase “ye have heard that Antichrist shall come” and reinterprets it to mean that you have heard from Christ himself that Antichrist shall come.
This is pure smoke and mirrors. John said that his readers had heard. He did not say that they had heard from Christ’s own lips.
In his fourth argument Pink says that “the world” is a term used in juxtaposition with the concept of Israel. But since he has utterly failed to establish the notion that John is speaking exclusively to Jewish Christians, this new assumption is based on a faulty premise.
In his fifth argument Pink demonstrates a willful disregard for the literary device of parallelism, and its primary function of adding emphasis.
In his sixth argument Pink finds two verses where “the whole world” means the world beyond Judea, and one verse where “the whole world” means all unbelievers exclusive of God’s elect. So why exactly is it impossible for 1 John 2:2 to use the phrase in a universal sense?
Pink writes: In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost?
And finally this perversion of the text leads inexorably to a perversion of the faith itself. Unless Christ died for all you have no certain foundation for the belief that He died for you. And so you enter the futility of Calvinism seeking assurance of salvation in your own righteousness as a means of divining the mysteries of the hidden will of God’s eternal election, which He has deliberately hidden from you.
God save us all from such unassailable logic!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brothers in the Lord,
The post being commented on is centered around the theme of whether God loves everybody or just His Church. It is not a post on Calvinism v. Arminianism. Thus, let us keep our comments centered around the theme.
Quotes from people about issues like irresistable grace are not directly related to this discussion. Ranting remarks against Calvinists in general (which have nothing to do with the issue of who God loves), are not appropriate for this forum. Such comments have been removed and will be removed if posted again.
Please keep your comments centered on reasoning from Scripture around the issue of whether God loves everybody or just His Church. An article centered around a key verse being discussed is fine. An article that creates a straw man of Calvinism in general and then shoots the straw man down is not an appopriate way to discuss the issue of whether God loves everyone or just His Church.
– The Host Administrator of This Blog
To take verses which clearly say God loves the whole world, that He is not willing that any perish, that He wants all to come to the truth, etc. and to say that "world" and "any" and "all" only mean the elect is to impose on those verses a view which perverts the meaning of what is being said and conflicts with the rest of the Bible. We have at least one verse where this artificially imposed meaning won't hold: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn 2:2). Surely, "our"/"ours" must be the elect and the "whole world" must be everyone else.
Nathaniel and John, I still do not plan on getting more involved in the discussion, but I do have one question that's been burning on my mind and I'd like y'all to clarify, if you don't mind.
It's been said here that God does not love everyone, and even further that He cannot love everyone. To me, a logical conclusion would then be that we as Christians cannot love everyone, and thus there are some people we are not required to love (indeed cannot). I know we are called to love those in the Church... does all this mean we need not love the lost (who are not elect, perhaps)? If we follow God's example (according to your reasoning), we would be required to love the Church and God's creation, but not more. Am I correct in my assessment of your position?
Hi, Joey -
Thanks for alluding to Matthew 5:43–48 and Luke 6:35 again. I'm glad that you brought them up again because I think Eric mentioned them earlier as well, and I've been so tied up between work and study (I have final exams coming up) that I have been unable to respond.
The short answer to your question is no.
The long answer requires that we reexamine the text of Matthew 5:43–48:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
Where in this passage does it say that "God loves His enemies"? Maybe you can point it out to me because I’m not seeing it. Nor do I see it in Luke 6:35. It says that we are to love our enemies and show kindness to them as God shows kindness (by making “the sun to rise on the evil”). But I do not see where it says God loves His enemies.
Certainly, you can show kindness to someone even though you do not love him. We often show kindness to people not because we love them but because we love someone else. Often drivers are kind to other drivers on the road not because they love them but because they love their own well-being and the well-being of those in the car with them.
If you want to know what motivates God to show kindness to those who are not a part of His Church, other passages are far clearer. Take, for example, this passage:
“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” Romans 9:21–23.
This passage tells us point blank why God is kind to the non-elect: “God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory.”
Unlike Matthew 5:43–48, in which some have tried to infer God’s motive, this passages spells it out. God endures the vessels of wrath to show His Church His glory.
Another passage reflects on this same idea – a parable from Christ:
“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” Matthew 13:24–30
Verse 29 of this passage shows that the householder (representing the Lord) will not harm the tares (representing the wicked non-elect) for concern of harming His wheat (the Church). Once again, we see that God is longsuffering and kind to His enemies for the sake of His own.
Where does that leave us? Well, we are not God. We do not know who the elect and non-elect are. Only God does. Thus, we would do well to love our enemies lest we are not kind to the elect of God. In God’s sovereign plan, our kindness to a lost soul may be part of the Lord’s instrument to bring that soul to repentance.
But there is an even better reason to love our enemies: God told us to love them. We obey and God handles the results.
As several wise men of American past have said, “Duty is ours; the consequences are God’s.”
Nathaniel
Excellent words, Nathaniel.
This has been very educating to me on several levels. Like I said, I'm not much of a theologian, but I like being able to study God's word with others who ARE educated in these areas.
It's been a great help. :)
God Bless!
~ Sola Scriptura, John.
Where in this passage does it say that "God loves His enemies"? Maybe you can point it out to me because I’m not seeing it.
You are right, Nathaniel. The text says that we are to love our enemies, and bless those that curse us, and do good to them that hate us, and pray for those who despitefully use us. Why??? Why should we do all these things? Jesus tells us, it is so that we may be children of our Father in heaven. What do children do? They emulate their fathers. Jesus is calling us to do all these things because our Father in heaven does them also. He loves His enemies. He blesses those who curse Him. He does good to those who hate Him. He desires the very best for those who despitefully use Him. This passage is telling us of God’s love for His enemies from the beginning to the end.
You are also right, Nathanial, when you say that we may show kindness without love. But that is not the sort of kindness Jesus is commanding us to demonstrate. Jesus is giving us the Law in its most severe form. He is telling us that when we love as the publicans – when we show kindness to other drivers because it serves our interests to do so – we are NOT emulating our Father in heaven. We are being imperfect, and what reward do we have for kindness that flows from such sinful, fallen motives? Jesus asks that rhetorical question, and our fallen, human nature sheepishly responds: "Maybe just a very small reward?" NO... Jesus is actually suggesting that the reward for "love" from self-interested motives is the very reward His audience expects the publicans will one day receive in hell.
The two passages you cited are not actually clearer than the Matthew 5 passage. The Romans 9 passage does not address the question at hand: "Does God love everyone?" Instead Paul is addressing the question: "Why some and not others?" He responds by saying that is the Potter’s business and not ours. This is far less clear and direct than the Matthew 5 passage.
The Matthew 13 passage is also addressing an issue other than the question at hand. It is addressing the problem of hypocrites in the Church. And Christ’s servants ask, "Lord, should we weed them out?" He says, "No." In giving us instruction on this issue Christ is most certainly concerned about the welfare of the elect. He would prefer to give the means of grace liberally to all the hypocrites, than withhold them from even one of His children. But again, this passage is much more obscure than Matthew 5 on the subject of who God loves.
God does love the elect, and He does at times show kindness to His enemies for the sake His children among them. But if God shows kindness to the non-elect ONLY for the sake of His own, then Matthew 5:46 applies even to our Father in heaven... "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Jesus is very clear. Such love is part of humanity’s imperfection. It is not part of God’s perfection.
Eric,
I understand your perspective because I have thought the same way you do for most of my life. However, there are subtly false presuppositions behind your understanding of these verses that lead you to a subtly erroneous interpretation.
• You wrote: “Jesus is calling us to do all these things because our Father in heaven does them also. He loves His enemies. He blesses those who curse Him. He does good to those who hate Him. He desires the very best for those who despitefully use Him. This passage is telling us of God’s love for His enemies from the beginning to the end.” (emphasis added)
These statements about God stand in direct contradiction to a host of Scripture passages addressing God’s relationship to His enemies. I could not list all them, but below are a number worth highlighting.
1. The Bible does not say that God blesses those who curse Him. To the contrary, an overwhelming pattern in Scripture shows that God brings judgment upon those who are His enemies. In many instances, the word “curse” is even used.
- Exodus 20:7 ~ “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
- Psalm 119:21 ~ Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed, which do err from thy commandments.
- Jeremiah 17:5 ~ “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.”
- Mal. 1:14 ~ “But cursed be the deceiver . . .”
- Jeremiah 48:10 ~ “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully . . .”
- Deuteronomy 27:26 ~ “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.”
- Psalm 37:20 ~ “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.”
- Psalm 129:4 ~ “The LORD is righteous: he hath cut asunder the cords of the wicked.”
- Psalm 146:9 ~ “The LORD preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.”
- Isaiah 3:11 ~ “Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”
- Matthew 25:41 ~ “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”
2. The Bible specifically states that God blesses those who obey Him but in contrast He hurts those who disobey Him. If it were otherwise, God would be unjust and we would have no incentive to obey Him.
- Deuteronomy 28:1–14 lists the blessings God brings upon those who obey His Law.
- Deuteronomy 28:15–68 lists the curses God brings upon those who disobey His Law.
- Proverbs 3:33 ~ “The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.”
- Psalm 7:11 ~ “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.”
- Psalm 145:20 ~ “The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.”
- Proverbs 10:6 ~ “Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.”
- Proverbs 10:24 ~ “The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the righteous shall be granted.”
- Proverbs 13:5 ~ “A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.”
- Proverbs 13:25 ~ “The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want.”
3. An overwhelming pattern in Scripture shows that God only blesses those who are obedient. There is no example in Scripture that shows God blessing any but those who do good toward God.
- Psalm 115:13 ~ “He will bless them that fear the LORD, both small and great.”
- Psalm 33:12 ~ “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.”
- Psalm 40:4 ~ “Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.”
- Psalm 84:12 ~ “O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.”
- Psalm 112:1 ~ “Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD, that delighteth greatly in his commandments. His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.”
- Psalm 119:2 ~ “Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.”
- Psalm 128:1 ~ “Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways.”
- Jeremiah 17:7 ~ “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.”
- Matthew 25:34 ~ “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:”
- James 1:25 ~ “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”
Deduction:
These passages make it remarkably clear that God does not bless His enemies. God blesses His people who follow Him and curses those who live wickedly.
If Matthew 5 is calling us to “emulate” God in all ways listed, then based on these passages we would have to emulate Him by cursing our enemies as He does. However, the fact that God does not bless His enemies further shows that when Matthew 5 speaks of us being “the children of [our] Father” it is not speaking of emulation.
Since it is clear Matthew 5 is telling us to actually deviate from the behavior of God (not emulate it), it is possible if not likely (in light of the other Scriptures discussed earlier) that when Matthew 5 tells us to “love our enemies” it is likewise calling us to deviate from the behavior of God.
Just as these passages show us that God blesses the obedient and curses His enemies, the Bible shows us that God loves the obedient and abhors or hates (absolute opposite of love) His enemies. For example, here is one passage we have not looked at yet:
“The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.” Proverbs 15:9
The word “but” denotes contrast. The word “but” denotes that the alternative of being loved is being an abomination. God loves those who follow righteousness, but the way of those He does not love is an abomination to Him.
Clarification from a Companion Passage:
A companion passage to Matthew 5:43–48 is Romans 12:17–21, which says:
“Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Note what this companion passage says about God. It does not say God recompenses good for evil. Rather, it says vengeance is His, He repays. The point is that it is not in our jurisdiction to enact vengeance against evildoers; God alone has the right to exercise vengeance (and He has delegated this right to a certain extent to civil government, as the passage goes on to mention in Romans 13).
That is the similar idea behind Matthew 5:43–48. When Jesus says “be the children of your Father”, He is not talking about emulation. Rather, Christ is alluding to the characteristic of children that when they are in harm, they do not fight for themselves, but they recognize that they are too small to fight for themselves and flee to their father for protection.
If a bully walks into a room and punches a child, you will soon learn who that child’s parent is because the child will quickly run in tears to his parent for protection and justice. Likewise, when we let the Lord retaliate for the evils done to us, we identify ourselves as His children. That is correct understanding behind passages like Matthew 5 and Romans 12.
Difference Between What We Can Do & What God Can Do:
Romans 12 says that God may execute vengeance against those who hurt us, but we should not. Likewise, God may hate His enemies, and He may curse His enemies, and the Bible tells us that He does do these things.
It is not the only time in the Bible God tells us not to do something that He has the right and jurisdiction to do as God. For example, Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that whosoever says to someone, “Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Yet, only chapters later, Christ twice calls the Pharisees “fools”, using the same Greek word. (See Matthew 23:14–19.)
Like Lucifer, there are many ways we may not emulate God. There are many ways that we may not “be like the Most High.” (See Isaiah 14:14.)
Although there is much more I would like to write in response, I do not have the time right now.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel - I know I wasn't going to weigh in again, and I promise I'm not going to become actively involved (I don't really want to be involved in an endless debate). However, there is one point (amidst the many debated) that must be dealt with. You say that God does not bless those who curse Him. You have compiled quite an impressive list of verses that demonstrate God's attributes of justice, holiness, etc. I agree that God destroys His enemies that do not place their faith in Him. However, it seems incorrect to say that He does not bless His enemies. Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" (Lk 23:34). This sounds very much the opposite of the verses you cited. You are canceling out one verse with your interpretation of another. Now, we know that God cannot contradict Himself. However,these verses can both be right. God can both hate and love at the same time to the same people.
You might say it's not logical, and you're right. But God is so far above and beyond our puny minds; I contend that this paradox is something we can never resolve. Maybe we should not force everything to be either black or white, maybe we should leave room for some gray. That is why I can believe in God's sovereingty and man's responsibility. That is why I can believe in His love and His justice and holiness.
God may hate sinners. He also loves them and offers them forgiveness...all of them (Lk 23:34).
I know we keep bringing up other points here, Nathaniel, but once again I wanted to clarify something...
"An overwhelming pattern in Scripture shows that God only blesses those who are obedient. There is no example in Scripture that shows God blessing any but those who do good toward God."
I realize you didn't bring this up in the context of Christians, so just for my clarification I wondered - how would you apply this towards Christians? Would you say that God only blesses us when we are obedient and do good, or were you only making this as a general point?
Stephen,
You seem to be making a false inference that forgiveness is the same as blessing. God forgives people by the blood of Christ in order that He may bless them, but there is no reason to assume forgiveness is the sameas blessing.
I believe in paradoxes in Scripture. There are many paradoxes in Scripture like the Trinty, the Incarnation, and to some extent even the Providence of God and the responsibility of man. However, every example of paradoxes in Scripture involve God's powers or abilities, not His character, attributes, or personality.
The fact that the Christian God is not a paradox in His character is one of the distinguishing traits of Christianity as opposed to many Eastern religions such as Hinduism. These false faiths teach that God's character is a paradox, and He is constantly having a internal conflict between good and evil.
Thankfully, we do not serve a God who blesses, rewards, or even condones evil.
Again, as the Scriptures repeatedly state:
“The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.” Proverbs 3:33
Here again, the "but" denotes contrast. It is unequivocal. There is nothing paradoxical about it.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel,
I’m not going to address your three arguments individually. Collectively they are all based on a stunningly obvious example of a false dilemma. It goes like this... If God brings judgment upon those who are His enemies, then it is false to say that He blesses those who curse Him. That is incorrect. It is a false dilemma.
Without denying that God will ultimately judge His enemies at the end of time, and without denying that He sometimes judges them in time, we are free to affirm that He also blesses those who curse Him. And because the testimony of Scripture is clear to that effect we are compelled to make that affirmation.
If Matthew 5 is calling us to "emulate" God in all ways listed, then based on these passages we would have to emulate Him by cursing our enemies as He does. However, the fact that God does not bless His enemies further shows that when Matthew 5 speaks of us being "the children of [our] Father" it is not speaking of emulation.
Your premise ("that God does not bless His enemies") is false because it is based on your false dilemma. And you will never understand Matthew 5 correctly as long as you are forcing it to conform to a false conclusion from a false dilemma.
That is the similar idea behind Matthew 5:43–48. When Jesus says "be the children of your Father", He is not talking about emulation. Rather, Christ is alluding to the characteristic of children that when they are in harm, they do not fight for themselves, but they recognize that they are too small to fight for themselves and flee to their father for protection.
No one denies that we should run to our heavenly Father for refuge instead of striking out at our enemies. But Matthew 5:43-48 does NOT say that. It compliments that truth, but it does not deliver that truth. The messages of these two passages are complimentary; but to claime that they are identical is incorrect. And you would never attempt to impose one text onto the other in this manner unless you clearly recognized the problem Matthew 5:43-48 creates for your false doctrine of God's limited love.
Nathaniel, God lavishes His love on His enemies. How do we know this? Because no one is righteous... NO NOT ONE! God lavishes His love on His enemies; because in all creation He finds no other object for His love. God’s election of His saints does not change this reality in any way.
You know... what is really crazy about all this is that a doctrine of "limited love" is not a necessary corollary to the doctrine of Definite Atonement.
Hey, Joey -
If I understand your question correctly, then I think I would have to say that I was only makng that as a general point.
Nathaniel
Eric,
The only way you can argue a false dilemma is by lumping all three of my points into one. Many of the verses I listed specifically state that God curses His enemies. Are you suggesting the absurd idea that God both blesses and curses the same person simultaneously? Are you saying God works against Himself that way?
If that is what you are suggesting, and we are supposed to "emulate" God, then I suppose we may both curse and bless our enemies simultaneously.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, in many of these passages, the term "but" is used in contrast. It shows that those who God does not bless, He curses, and those He does not curse, He blesses. There is no neutrality with God. Each person is either living under God's blessing or His curse. Those are the only options the Scriptures present.
I recognize that Matthew 5 and Romans 12 are complimentary passages, and not identical. I did not suggest that they were identical. However, as companion passages, they cannot contradict each other. Romans 12 plainly presents God as affirming His right to bestow "vengeance" not blessing on evildoers. Thus, Romans 12 directly clashes with your interpretation of Matthew 5.
Romans 12 and the other passages I have listed create a clear problem for your belief in God's blessing for those who do evil towards Him, and your belief in His love for those outside the Church.
Nathaniel
The only way you can argue a false dilemma is by lumping all three of my points into one. Many of the verses I listed specifically state that God curses His enemies.
Isn’t this just more of the same??? You are suggesting that if God curses His enemies then He does not bless His enemies. That is a false dilemma, and it is woven into each of your points; not just collectively, but individually as well.
Are you suggesting the absurd idea that God both blesses and curses the same person simultaneously? Are you saying God works against Himself that way?
No. I am saying that God blesses and curses, loves and hates the same person, but not at the same time or in the same sense. For you to infer that there is a contradiction in the fact that God blesses and curses, loves and hates is an improper inference. If God blesses you today, and tomorrow casts you into the Lake of Fire, He is not being unfaithful to His Word, He is not misrepresenting Himself to you, and He is not working against Himself. Inferences of that sort falsely slander and defame God’s character.
I recognize that Matthew 5 and Romans 12 are complimentary passages, and not identical. I did not suggest that they were identical.
Perhaps using the term "identical" was imprecise, but it was not inaccurate. Your position was that when Jesus says, "Love your enemies... so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven," He does not mean love your enemies. Instead He means as Paul says, "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God." In your isogesis, Matthew 5 does not mean what Matthew 5 says; it means what Romans 12 says. You are forcing the Matthew 5 text to mean what the Romans 12 text says because you are having a hard time reconciling Matthew 5 to your peculiar understanding of God’s limited love.
However, as companion passages, they cannot contradict each other. Romans 12 plainly presents God as affirming His right to bestow "vengeance" not blessing on evildoers. Thus, Romans 12 directly clashes with your interpretation of Matthew 5.
Personally, I don’t think Doug Phillips is very good theologian or Bible scholar, but he is a brilliant logician. If you were to present this argument to him, I am convinced he would take you to the woodshed for such sloppy logic.
Where is the contradiction? Yes God has the right to take vengeance, but Romans 12 does not say He cannot or will not bless evildoers. When God sends His children to bless evildoers (as He does in Romans 12:20-21) is He not blessing them? Your invalid and unnecessary misinterpretation of the doctrine of Definite Atonement is in direct conflict with both Romans 12 and Matthew 5.
Eric,
You wrote: “I am saying that God blesses and curses, loves and hates the same person, but not at the same time or in the same sense.”
I take it that since you believe we should emulate God, you would say that since God blesses and curses the same person at different times, then we may do likewise. Thus, we may bless those who curse us sometimes, but curse them at other times. Similarly, we may love our enemies sometimes and hate them at other times.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel,
When did I ever say that we should emulate the Father in everything He does? Jesus did not say, "Love your enemies and sometimes curse them, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven." He said only "love" them.
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful."
Luke 6:35-36
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
I think "emulate" was a poor choice of words, because I think it goes much deeper than that. It goes into the very nature of who we are as redeemed children of God. Every child carries certain traits inherited from his father. The child has no choice but to be like Dad in many, many respects. Apart from the redemptive work of Christ we have no ability in ourselves to love our enemies. But when we receive the Holy Spirit we receive a new man who cannot help but love his enemies. That new man is the child of his heavenly Father, and that is demonstrated in his very nature. So it goes well beyond "emulation," which is something that originates in our will.
What is really strange to me is that when you say that God loves only the Church or only His elect, you are suggesting that God isn't loving His enemies. The Church... the elect are composed entirely of God's enemies. If God never loved or loves His enemies then God never loved or loves anyone. The only object God finds for His love in all the world is His enemies.
If the elect are not among God's enemies, then what was Paul talking about in Romans 5:8?
Malachi 2:17 says, "Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, 'Wherein have we wearied him?' When ye say, 'Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them'; or, 'Where is the God of judgment?'"
Eric,
I agree with your last comment more than any other you've made so far. As I stated way back at the beginning of this discussion, and as you just pointed out from Luke 6:35–36, the Bible does not say God loves those outside the Church. It says that He is kind to them.
It is His kindness that we are to identify with and follow. As you said, the Bible is pretty clear about that. But saying that we are to love our enemies because of God's love, requires some reading into the passage.
Also as you mentioned, when we are redeemed, God does a work in our hearts. He enables us to have a heart to love Him and obey Him. He enables us to obey His command to love our enemies.
God loved us as Romans 5:8 says while we are yet sinners because He knows who His elect are and He loves them while they are yet sinners.
Ephesians has much to say on these ideas. Ephesians 1:4–6 says:
"[God] hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Note the description "the beloved." God has made us accepted into the beloved. There is one group of people called "the beloved." The term "beloved" usually means those who are loved. God has made us accepted into the group of people whom He loves.
As Ephesians 2:1–7 says, when we were yet dead in trespasses and sins, "God, who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us, . . . hath quickened us together with Christ" (emphasis added).
• BTW: A while back you one of things I wanted to address, but did not have to (I still don't have time to address everything you wrote) had to do with Mr. Pink's interpretation of I John 2:2.
You wrote: "Of course, an apostle to the circumcised could not possibly be addressing a Gentile or a mixed congregation… even from his residence in Ephesus!"
Remember that Jews did not (just as they do not today) only live in Israel. There were communities of Jews in various cities throughout the Romans Empire, including Ephesus.
Scholars believe the book of Romans was written to Jewish Christians living in Rome. Likewise, the book of Hebrews is believed to be written to Jewish Christians. If John was an "apostle to the uncircumcised" as the Bible plainly states, then I see no reason to assume John was not writng to Jewish Christians when he wrote I John.
As a side, what makes you think the Apostle John was living in Ephesus when he wrote I John?
Nathaniel
Note the description "the beloved." God has made us accepted into the beloved. There is one group of people called "the beloved." The term "beloved" usually means those who are loved. God has made us accepted into the group of people whom He loves.
No, sir, that is a misunderstanding of the text. The term "the Beloved" in Ephesians 1:6 is a reference to Christ. That term is a reference to the Elect, and not a reference to the elect. It is improper to read this text as being primarily about us, when, in fact, it is all about the Son of God. I am not denying our eternal election. The passage clearly teaches that. But it also clearly teaches that the mystery of God’s will is made known to us IN CHRIST (v.9) We do not get to peer into the mystery of God’s eternal election, but we do see it clearly revealed to us, and to all, on the cross. (The cross does have the undeniable effect of separating the sheep from the goats.)
On the matter of John’s first epistle...
It is reasonable to assume that John was living in Ephesus when he wrote his first epistle because John spent much of his ministry there, especially in the later years, and all of his writings are generally dated to the late first century. Obviously I have no way of knowing exactly where John was when he picked up his pen to write this letter, but Ephesus is a reasonable guess. Do you know of anyone who dates John's writings prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? Because, if I am not mistaken, that is generally regarded as the event driving John into Asia Minor.
I have no problem with the idea that John may have written his epistle to Jewish Christians, so I am not assuming that he was not writing to them. However, John was not addressing Jewish Christians exclusively, and that is at the heart of Mr. Pink's argument. Mr. Pink wants us to believe that first century congregations were split and divided along ethnic lines. He would have us believe that in any given place there was a Jewish congregation and a Gentile congregation separate and distinct from one another. Furthermore he would have us believe that the apostles encouraged this separation by dividing themselves along lines of circumcision and uncircumcision. All of this is false, but because this misrepresentation of the historical context proves useful in his perversion of the sacred text, he does not hesitate to perpetuate it. He is so committed to his textual presupposition (that it does not mean what it says) that he willing to perform whatever gymnastics necessary to make his presupposition fit into the text. His efforts are obviously unnatural and heavily labored.
Hello Everyone,
I am delighted to join this discussion. First off, I want to thank my cousin Nathaniel for taking the time to post this blog and devote all the time reading and responding.
Eric, please tell me...who are the many in Mathew 20:28? Is that God's elect or is that everyone?
Eric,
First, I must admit that I found your understanding of the word “beloved” in Ephesians 1:6 to be quite interesting because I simply had never thought of that term as referring to Christ. However, after some investigation, I believe you are correct.
On first glance the passage does seem rather ambiguous, appearing to possibly refer to either Christ or the Church. Robertson’s remarks that the phrase that is translated “in the beloved” appears only in this instance in the Word of God. However, every commentary from Adam Clarke to Matthew Poole, and Wycliffe’s to the Geneva Notes says that the phrase “in the beloved” is referring to the Beloved Christ. Vincent’s Word Studies compares this phrase to similar phrases in Colossians 1:13, Matthew 3;17, and Matthew 17:5. Their evaluations make sense to me.
So I agree with you that the phrase “in the beloved” does refer to Christ. Thank you for this correction. Be that as it may, of course, Ephesians 1:4–6 also references the love that God has for “us” His chosen Church, and so this correction does not negate the idea that God reserves His love for those redeemed by His beloved Son.
In fact, Christ is the only one worthy of the Father’s love. It is only by redemption in Christ that the holy God is able to love us.
Second, you wrote: “Mr. Pink wants us to believe that first century congregations were split and divided along ethnic lines. He would have us believe that in any given place there was a Jewish congregation and a Gentile congregation separate and distinct from one another. Furthermore he would have us believe that the apostles encouraged this separation by dividing themselves along lines of circumcision and uncircumcision. All of this is false, . . .”.
After making this assertion you launched into what sounds to me like a dogmatic tirade about Mr. Pink’s motivations for wanting to twist the Scriptures this way. However, I did not see in your last response any support given for why your perspective is correct and his is wrong. It sounds as if you are just blasting your opinion, which is informative, but not persuasive.
You appear to admit that the idea that John was writing from Ephesus was only “a reasonable guess.” Also, you present no evidence for this guess. You ask me if I know of anyone who dates John’s writings before A.D. 70 (as if they were all written at the same time), but you did not list anyone who dates the writing of I John prior to A.D. 70.
You seem to indicate that you do not believe Jewish Christians in the First Century were having a hard time accepting Gentiles into their company. And yet, it has been long believed that the books of Romans and Galatians were written primarily to Jewish Christians for the very purpose of explaining to them why Gentiles could be welcomed into the faith with no strings attached. Acts 10 demonstrates that Jewish Christians like the Apostle Peter were hesitant to welcome Gentiles into the fold.
Furthermore, Mr. Pink makes a strong case for his position by pointing out passages like Galatians 2:9, where Paul plainly says that the other apostles considered him a missionary “unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.” Paul himself at one point became so frustrated with the Jews he was witnessing to that “he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” (See Acts 18:6.)
Thus, I see much support for Mr. Pink’s perspective and none for yours. Your unsupported, dogmatic insistence that Mr. Pink is using his presuppositions to twist the Bible reminds me of a story about a Pastor preparing for his sermon. As he was reviewing his outline, he came to one point and scribbled next to it, “Weak point. Pound pulpit here.”
Nathaniel
Hey guys, I just wanted to drop in again and say one more time, this is a fantastic discussion. This has been very enjoyable to read, and I love the constant use of scripture. That's a wonderful thing.
I appreciate you taking long amounts of time to write questions, Eric, and especially for you taking long times to answer, Nathaniel. It's been a blessing.
~ In Christ, John.
John, thanks again for your insight and participation. Looking forward to seeing you again hopefully in a few weeks!
Nathaniel
Eric, one more thing I was unable to address earlier . . .
You wrote: "One thing I noticed from the comments was a place where Nathaniel said, 'Finally, once again your analogy... outside of the analogies of Scripture.' Okay... perhaps, but where does scripture ever compare the love of the Father for His Only Begotten Son to that of a husband for his wife? That was the analogy Nathaniel used to correct the analogy he considered unscriptural (and he was commended for this). There might be some obscure passage that I'm forgetting about, but I can't remember this analogy ever being used in scripture."
Yes, you hit on part of the point of my analogy. Part of the point I was attempting to illustrate through the use of that analogy about Christ being like the wife was the inaccuracy that can result when we use analogies not given in Scripture. Especially when the Bible already provides plenty of analogies that quite accurately illustrate the truth.
Nathaniel
Nathaniel,
Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of town and away from the Internet for most of last week.
I am very much encouraged by your willingness to entertain an idea you had not previously considered (re: Eph. 1:6), even though I was the one bringing it to your attention. To be quite honest, you surprised me there.
When I read the Ephesians passage to be speaking primarily of Christ, I do not thereby deny that it is also speaking of the election of saints. The Church catholic has always affirmed the doctrine of election. Calvin’s variation on it – the doctrine of election to reprobation – is logical, but it is not scriptural. Mr. Pink has demonstrated this quite conclusively.
Mr. Pink begins with the presupposition that "the whole world" cannot possibly mean "the whole world." His entire exercise serves one and only one purpose, and that is to make "the whole world" mean something less than "the whole world." I am not questioning any of his motives, except the one he does nothing to hide.
You seem to indicate that you do not believe Jewish Christians in the First Century were having a hard time accepting Gentiles into their company
No... that’s not what I said or meant. Yes... Jewish Christians were having a very hard time accepting Gentiles and integrating them into the Church. But the Holy Spirit was leading the Church and the apostles in the direction of integration from the very beginning. Mr. Pink would have us believe, on the basis of Galatians 2:9, that the individuals named as "missionaries to the circumcision" restricted their ministry to the Jews and only the Jews for the rest of their lives. Galatians 2:9 does not say or even imply anything of the sort. And as you point out, such segregation is contrary to the spirit of Romans and Galatians, as well as the rest of the New Testament.
The New Testament books normally attributed to John appear in our canon in chronological order, beginning with the Gospel and ending with Revelation. Very few scholars date John’s Gospel prior to 70 A.D., so John’s first epistle was also written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after John had begun living abroad as a sojourner among the Gentiles. Mr. Pink asks us to believe that the Christian Church in Gentile provinces remained so severely segregated between Jews and Gentiles that John was able to address a letter to Jewish Christians exclusively. Remember that this was written some 40 to 50 years after the Ascension. How does he know this? I am not saying he is definitely wrong. I am saying that his evidence is lame and counterintuitive.
Please explain how Galatians 2:9 indicates that John was writing his first epistle to Jewish Christians exclusively.
Please explain how the use of the first person plural in 1 John 1 indicates that John was writing to Jewish Christians exclusively.
Please explain how the phrase "from the beginning" indicates that John was writing to Jewish Christians exclusively.
Please explain how the clause "ye have heard that Antichrist shall come" indicates that John was writing to Jewish Christians exclusively.
None of these "evidences" even points us in the general direction of his conclusion, and all his other arguments (except the last one) rest on this unsubstantiated conclusion. His last argument gets down to the heart of the matter. He says that interpreting 1 John 2:2 to mean what it says would undermine the entire Christian faith. He is almost right. It would undermine his system of theology. Therefore, in order to maintain the integrity of his system (which itself undermines the foundation of the Christian faith), he builds a house of cards and takes his stand inside.
If Jesus Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world, then there is no objective basis for believing that Jesus Christ died for you or me. To seek assurance of salvation in the sovereignty of God and His election of the saints is essentially a form of witchcraft. It is an attempt to pierce the veil over the mystery of God’s hidden will. Seeking the answer to the question, "Am I among the elect?" is essentially no different than seeking the answer to the question, "What town will I live in?" or "Who will my future spouse be?" The source of assurance – the only source Scripture delivers to sinners – is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. We must seek assurance in the cross alone. And when Mr. Pink tells us that "the whole world" means something less than "the whole world" he is taking away from those who believe him the only assurance God gives mankind.
In the last paragraph of my previous comment, I misspoke...
Simply asking questions such as, "What town will I live in?" or, "Who will my spouse be?" is not in and of itself a form of witchcraft. These are very practical questions that everyone, except wandering eunuchs, must ask and answer. But when we try to find the answer in God’s sovereign will, we are crossing a boundary that ought to be left untouched. When we try to discover who God, in His sovereign will, intends for us to marry, we are crossing into divination.
Similarly, there is nothing wrong with the question, "Am I one of God’s elect?" We can and should ask the question. But we must find the answer in the cross, and the fact that Jesus died for all. We must find the answer in what God has revealed, and not in what God has kept hidden. When we try to discern God’s sovereign election by some way other than the cross and the means of grace (like, for instance, by the quality of our obedience to God’s law), then we have fallen into superstition and, yes, witchcraft.
Mr. Pink wants us to think that taking 1 John 2:2 to mean what it actually says threatens the core of the Christian faith. That is because Mr. Pink sees God’s sovereignty as the core doctrine; and he believes that if Jesus’ death propitiated the sins of all men without exception, then God cannot be sovereign. Mr. Pink believes that we must understand and interpret the cross through the lens of God’s sovereignty. That is entirely backwards. In truth, Christ’s atonement is the core doctrine of the Christian faith, and we must understand God’s sovereignty through the cross.
Andy,
The "many" in Matthew 20:28 is a reference to those who are actually and finally saved. To put it another way, it is a reference to the elect.
The person who affirms that Jesus died for the elect and for the whole world is not in conflict with Scripture. The one who affirms that Jesus died for the elect and denies that Jesus died for the whole world may sound much more coherent, but he is in conflict with Scripture.
Eric,
Hope you had a pleasant trip. I am currently unable to read and respond to your last few comments due to the fact that I have final exams this week. Once my exams are completed this week, I look forward to reviewing everything you wrote and getting back with you.
Nathaniel
Eric,
Thank you for waiting for my response, as I have been preoccupied with studies.
Below are different types of arguments in response to your last comments to me. The first is a philosophical argument, in response to your philosophical arguments. The others following are textual arguments, in response to your questions and arguments about the text of Scripture.
• Another Way Your View Cheapens God's Love
God loves everbody?
A father says that he loves his daughter. Then one day his daughter disobeys him. In response, the father takes his daughter and beats her to a bloody pulp. Then he breaks each of her legs, one at a time, and each of her arms, one at a time.
As his daughter whimpers in pain, the father pours boiling hot acid all over his daughter and then stabs her repeatedly with a knife and kills her.
Now, though the father said that he loves his daughter, do you believe him based on his actions?
If we are to believe that God loves everyone, then we must believe that He loves those who He sends to hell. In hell, however, people endure suffering far more excruciating than the daughter in this hypothetical. They abide in continual darkness, in absence from God and in the presence of demons. They are eaten alive by worms. They are continually thirsty, but they cannot drink. They are continually burning. There is weeping and gnashing of teeth. And it never stops.
How can a loving God inflict such torment on people who He loves? How can that be consistent with His loving character?
If we think God sending people who He loves to hell is consistent with His loving nature, then we might reasonably wonder if His love for us (His saints) might manifest itself in a similar way. Moreover, we might wonder what good His love is.
If God could love someone, and still send them to hell, then what good is it to be loved by God?
However, if God only loves those who He elects to redemption, then it makes perfect sense for God to send those who He does not love to hell. They are not his loved ones. They are out of the blood of Christ and under His just wrath.
So, again, God loves those who He redeems, blesses, and sends to Heaven. He justly hates those who He curses and sends to hell.
• A Textual Analysis of the Phrase "the whole world" in Scripture
1. Your Own Presupposition
You wrote: "Mr. Pink begins with the presupposition that 'the whole world' cannot possibly mean 'the whole world.' His entire exercise serves one and only one purpose, and that is to make 'the whole world' mean something less than 'the whole world.'
First, I do not deny that Mr. Pink has presuppositions that he is arguing from when he interprets the phrase "the whole world" from I John 2:2. However, his presuppositions are biblically-based. The segment of his writing that someone posted as a comment to in this discussion appears at the end as an appendix to his book The Sovereignty of God.
Throughout that book he makes a solid, biblical case (using many of the other passages we have addressed earlier) for many truths relating to God's sovereignty, including the doctrine of limited atonement. So when he approaches I John 2:2 in the appendix of his book, he is approaching it having his premise already supported and established.
Of course, as I have already discussed on this forum with Stephen, Mr. Pink is not the only one with presuppositions he brings with him to this discussion. Mr. Pink is sincere about his presupposition, but we all have presuppositions whether hidden or not.
You, Eric, are beginning with the presupposition that God loves everyone when you interpret I John 2:2. You choose to interpret certain key phrases in that verse a certain way that favors your position, just as you are accusing Mr. Pink of doing.
For example, again, you wrote: "His entire exercise serves one and only one purpose, and that is to make 'the whole world' mean something less than 'the whole world.'
What does the phrase "the whole world" mean?
In its broadest understanding, the phrase would refer to everything in the world from the dirt to the water to the ants to the birds to the people to the clouds and perhaps even the space of the universe. Why don't you interpret the phrase "the whole world" with this broad understanding?
In a much more narrow understanding (your view), the phrase could refer to only the people in the world. But even this understanding has several possibilities: Is it referring to only all the people in the world alive at the time I John 2:2 was written? Is it referring to only all the people from the time I John 2:2 into until the end of time? Or is it referring to all the people in world from the beginning of time to the end of time?
In an even narrower understanding (Mr. Pink's view), the phrase could refer to the world of believers. It demonstrates that God saves not only the Jews but also the Gentiles.
In light of the fact that there are numerous ways the phrase "the whole world" may be understood, and you have selected one of the middle understandings, it is rather silly for you to accuse Mr. Pink of making the phrase mean less than what it “means.”
2. Studying the Text
Since there are numerous meanings or understandings of the phrase "the whole world," we would do well to study the text in greater depth in order to get a better grasp on what the Apostle John meant by the phrase when he wrote it.
First, we could look at how the phrase "the whole world" or “all the world” is used in other portions of the Bible with emphasis on the terms “whole” or “all.”
- Romans1:8 ~ "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."
Obviously, in this passage the phrase "the whole world" does not mean every person in the world. The unknown people living in China had probably not heard of the faith of the Christians in Rome. The undiscovered people of the Mayan and Incan Empires had not heard of the faith of the Christian in Rome. Most likely, even the relatively nearby Huns had not heard about faith of the Christians in Rome.
Thus, the phrase "the whole world" must be understood more narrowly in this context, referring perhaps to the world of believers living in that day or perhaps to the whole known world.
The next verse is similar.
- 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, Caesar Augustus did not tax every single person living in the world; he taxed every person of the world under the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire. That is understood from the context of Scripture and history.
According to the Strong’s Concordance, the Greek word that is translated “whole” in I John 2:2 and Romans 1:8 is the word holos, which is translated in the KJV 65 times as “all”, 43 times as “whole”, two times as “every whit”, once as “altogether”—but 1,223 times as “throughout.”
Thus, it may be more accurate to translate I John 2:2 as “and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of those throughout the world.”
Second, we could look at how the term “world” is used in various passages in Scripture.
The Greek word for “world” in I John 2:2 is kosmos. Numerous passages in Scripture use this same Greek word translated “world” to refer to the world of believers, not to everyone living in the world.
- John 1:29 ~ “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”
Jesus does not take away the sins of everyone in the world or else everyone in the world would go to Heaven. The context of Scripture indicates that God only takes away the sins of those repent of their sins and claim the blood of Christ. So this is a passage where “world” does not mean everyone in the world.
- I Corinthians 4:9 ~ “For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.”
Again, the people of the Mayan and Incan Empire never saw Paul, so he was not made a spectacle to every person in the world. Once again, the term “world” must be understood more narrowly.
- II Corinthians 5:19 ~ “To whit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
If Christ had reconciled every person in world to Himself and not imputed their trespasses unto them, then every person would be going to heaven. Again, based on the context of Scripture we know that the term “world” in this passage refers more narrowly to the world of believers, not to every single person in the world.
So we see that the word “world” can be interpreted more narrowly than you are interpreting it and we see that word “whole” can be interpreted more narrowly than you are interpreting it. Thus, the phrase “the whole world” does not necessarily have the meaning that you attributed to it.
The narrowness or broadness of the phrase must be understood by looking at the context of the passage and the full context of Scripture. Mr. Pink has already presented a compelling explanation for the background of John’s ministry and the context he was speaking toward. I am not going to repeat all his arguments for they are lengthy and I could probably not do as well a job as he.
But to dismiss his explanation on its face because of some false presupposition that there is only one possible interpretation of the phrase “the whole world” is a gross hermeneutical and logical fallacy.
• Calling Unto Certain Peoples
You wrote: “Mr. Pink would have us believe, on the basis of Galatians 2:9, that the individuals named as ‘missionaries to the circumcision’ restricted their ministry to the Jews and only the Jews for the rest of their lives.”
I did not get that from what Mr. Pink wrote. I appears to me that Mr. Pink was saying that John’s ministry was primarily to the Jews. It is not racist for John to focus his ministry primarily on the Jews anymore than it was for Paul to focus his ministry on the Gentiles.
Hudson Taylor and John Birch focused their ministries on the Chinese. Adoniram Judson’s ministry was primarily to the people of Burma. Certainly people from other countries benefited from their ministry, but they focused their attention on the people of the particular cultures they believed they were called to minister. When they wrote and spoke they had their primary audience in mind.
A non-Chinese Christian may have heard a sermon Hudson Taylor preached primarily with the Chinese in mind. Likewise, some Gentile Christians may have been part of the assembly that John was writing to, but based on John’s track record, he was likely writing primarily with Jewish Christians in mind. The “children” of his ministry were probably mostly Jewish Christians since they were the group John focused his attention toward.
• Witchcraft???
You wrote: “To seek assurance of salvation in the sovereignty of God and His election of the saints is essentially a form of witchcraft. It is an attempt to pierce the veil over the mystery of God’s hidden will.
Such at-best gross, exaggerated characterizations do nothing to win me to your way of thinking, Eric. To call the doctrines of Grace “witchcraft” is to call every Christian who believed in doctrines of Grace a person practicing witchcraft, a capital crime under God’s Law. That would mean nearly every believer of the doctrines of Grace from John Knox to George Whitfield to Charles Spurgeon was practicing witchcraft. Just by looking at their fruits, we know this be false.
I would not make such a horrible accusation against an Armenian believer, or a Lutheran, as I believe you claim to be.
You do not really explain this offensive accusation, sharing what aspects of witchcraft seem to correlate with the doctrines of Grace in your mind, except to allude to a resemblance to divination.
If anything, the opposite appears to be true. We do not know who the elect are. God works in a person’s heart to repent and then they receive assurance of salvation. To a certain extent, we may identify a fellow believer by his fruits, for the Bible says that “by their fruit you shall know them.” There is no ceremony or chanting to work up a revelation of whether I am among the elect. Thus, I see no relation of God’s sovereign election to witchcraft.
Of course, the doctrines of Grace are not really the issue we are supposed to be discussing. Your accusation has little to do with the issue of whether God loves everybody or just His Bride the Church.
• Our Hope
Finally, you wrote: “ And when Mr. Pink tells us that ‘the whole world’ means something less than ‘the whole world’ he is taking away from those who believe him the only assurance God gives mankind.”
Our assurance is not negated by anything Mr. Pink wrote. Rather, it is affirmed. If the determination of our salvation is in the control of the all-wise, infallible, holy God then it is in the very best of hands.
I find much greater assurance in knowing that God is ultimately determining my eternal future than I would to think I was ultimately in control of that matter.
But again, this has hardly anything to do with the question of whether God loves everybody in the world or only His Bride the Church. I hope that you will honor my request that we keep this discussion on topic. Otherwise, I will have to start blocking your comments on this post.
The issue of soteriology is another discussion for another day.
Nathaniel Darnell
You, Eric, are beginning with the presupposition that God loves everyone when you interpret I John 2:2.
No, Nathaniel, I am not. I am beginning with the presupposition that to propitiate our sins is an act of Divine love. How could it be anything else?
Nathaniel - Again, I do not want to be drawn back into this debate. I do feel compelled, however, to point out 2 minor points concerning your last comment. They both relate to the meaning of the "whole world."
First, you drew from the NT to demonstrate that world has many meanings. This is true. However, what is important in the study of NT theology is how the author uses the term. For instance, Paul and John have very different meanings for flesh (Gk. Sarx). You only cited one verse from John (1:29), and he is the one we should be seeking to understand. In fact, John 1:29 is not the clear cut example of the believing world that you seem to think it is. Why is it not possible for the atonement to be offered to all, but that it is only efficacious for those who believe? In addition, there are alternate interpretations, including the idea that the proper translation should be "taken upon Himself" rather than "taketh away." Now, although this translation is grammatically acceptable, I am not sure if this is correct, and therefore will not hang my hat on this. My point, though, is that there are other options that I don't believe you have considered.
Second, you make a case for "throughout" as the meaning of holos in 1 John 2:2. You did this (from what I can tell) on the basis of Strong's concordance which listed the number of times this word was translated as "throughout." Now, I am sure that you understand the logical fallacy of translating Greek words on the basis of their English translation. That is in no way conclusive, and can in fact be misleading. The question is not "How was this translated?" but instead "What does this mean?"
It is true that "throughout" is a possible meaning. I consulted three prominent lexicons, and found that NEVER is "throughout" the primary meaning. "Whole" and "complete" are the basic meanings of the word. "Whole" is listed first, and therefore is accorded primary signficance. Now, this fact does not rule out your interpretation. I am simply pointing out that your argument also does not rule out Eric's, because your methodology was flawed. If you want to make this point, you must not stake your case on the twin arguments that I have discussed.
Stephen,
All your points are well taken. My purpose was not to show conclusively based on the two points you singled out that the way I interpreted the phrase "the whole world" was to be interpreted more narrowly. Rather, I was bringing into question Eric's dogmatic insistence that the phrase "the whole world" had only one possible meaning and that was the meaning he ascribes to it.
My point was that there is a wide variety of ways the phrase is understood both in the English and the Greek and that we have to look to the context of the passage, the writer, and the whole Word of God to properly interpret this phrase.
As you admit, your points do not rule out my interpretation, and it was not my purpose to rule out Eric's interpretation through the two textual points you cited. Those two points coupled with the other arguments Mr. Pink makes rule out Eric's interpretation.
Nathaniel Darnell
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
This has been very interesting and thought-provoking discussion. For the most part, I have enjoyed it. However, it is time we hung our hats and saved it for another day.
A Concerned Reader: I appreciate you taking up for me, and I agree with many of your remarks. Thank you. But I strongly doubt the wisdom and appropriateness of confronting Eric about his character on a blog. It's off topic, and I am not sure it is the best way for Christians to interact with each other on the web. (For some more information on this subject, I would recommend reading Doug Phillip's blog post today about slander on the web.)
I hope you understand. I do agree with you that this discussion should stick to the question of who God loves, not on limited atonement or the doctrines of Grace in general.
Eric: There are many things I would like to say to your last few comments. This discussion looks like it could go on for a long time yet, and we've already been discussing for several weeks. Right now unfortunately I'm too preoccupied with urgent projects for work, so I'm having a hard time keeping up with the discussion. Furthermore, it looks like this discussion has turned a little ugly. I'm sorry I have not been able to address the concerned reader comments sooner.
Also, you have directly refused to abide by my request to keep the discussion on the topic of this post because you seem to think the subject of limited love and limited atonement are too closely related to separate.
It's fine for you to believe that, but once you recognized that belief, you should have ceased discussion as I requested as the host of this blog. If I came to your house with a gun, and you told me you did not want any guns in your house, I would have to either leave your house or put away my gun to respect your wishes. That same principle of conduct should apply here.
Notice to all: Any further comments submitted to this post will be deleted upon arrival, and I am deleting the last few inappropriate posts that were made.This discussion seems to me to have gone beyond propriety.
I hope we will have more opportunities to discuss important subjects such as these in the future. Until then!
ND
<< Home