John Calvin on John 3:16

[ray kikkert]

I also asked if someone would address the 'righteous/wicked/worker's of iniquity' terminology in the Psalms especailly Psalm 5:5 and 11:5. If we get back to the theme of this thread, please someone address this, thanks!

Again, just a few thoughts. I think your concerns are legitimate, I just don't know if there are answers on a forum.....We each must hold ourselves accountable...

Grace to you

Eileen~
.

Maybe this could be of some help.

In the third place, let us not forget that the same Scriptures which speak of the love of God also speak of the very opposite of His love, namely, His divine hatred. Now if it is true that God loves all men, then it must also be true that He hates no man. But if the Scriptures cannot be broken, and if then it can be shown by those very Scriptures that God hates so much as even as one man, then it also follows that God does not love all men, and that the term "world" in John 3:16 cannot possibly mean all men.

Let us examine the Scriptures with a view to this question.

In Psalm 5:4, 5 we read: "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." In Psalm 11:5, 6 we read: "The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." And in Romans 9, a chapter that is very significant for this whole question, we read in verses 10-13: "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 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; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

From all these passages it is perfectly evident that there is a hatred of God as well as a love of God, and that some men are the object of the divine hatred, while others are the object of the divine love.

God Does NOT Love All Men

Therefore, our first answer to the question, "Whom does God love?" must be a negative one: God does not love all men. Let us obediently bow before this plain Word of God.

Hence, to proclaim nevertheless that God loves all men is false, and contrary to the church's mandate to preach the Word. Moreover, that pseudo-gospel cannot be anything else than devastating for the Christian's personal assurance of the love of God. And remember, all the while that we consider these words, that is after all the significant personal question: does God love me?

Next, let us explore that important question, "Does God love all men?" from another viewpoint, namely, that of God's love itself.

In the first place, let us notice that the text speaks emphatically of the love of God. This certainly implies that the love of God is almighty as He is almighty, sovereign as he is sovereign, unchangeable as He is the Unchangeable One, and that therefore the love of God is divinely able to seek and to find and to save its object. If God, therefore, so greatly loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for the salvation for that world, could it possibly be that the world, or any part of that world, goes lost? Yet the Scriptures themselves teach us plainly that not all men are saved. There will be thousands and millions of men who will never see eternal life, who have never been touched by this love of God. The choice therefore is obvious. Either you must maintain that God loves all men, and then accept the consequence that this love of God is powerless to reach and to save its object and to attain its purpose -- the very thought of which is blasphemous; or you must acknowledge that the almighty, sovereign, efficacious love of God is not for all men.

Or, in the second place, consider that love of God from the viewpoint of its revelation, namely, the gift of God's only begotten Son. That love of God is redemptive. God gave His Son in the fullness of time, in order that He might die the death of the cross, and that He might offer Himself on the altar of the righteous love of God as a perfect sacrifice for sin, for the sin of those whom God loved. Could it possibly be that the gift of God's Son was either wholly or partially in vain? To put it concretely, could it be that even one drop of His precious blood was shed for a man, and that then that man goes lost forever? Yet that must needs be the conclusion if we would maintain that God loved and gave His only begotten Son for all men.

Or again, consider that love of God, in the third place, from the point of view of its proclamation. Millions upon millions of men, from both the old and the new dispensation, have never heard of the love of God. That is, it was never preached to them. But could it possibly be that God would love any man, love him so greatly that He gave His only begotten Son for him, and then would never tell that man of His love? What a strange love of God that would be! You say, perhaps, that that is the fault of the church for failing to preach the gospel to all men? But is not the sovereign and almighty God powerful to cause the gospel to be preached to whomsoever He wills? And is not the very scope of the preaching of the gospel a matter of His own sovereign determination and sending? How shall they preach, except they be sent - sent by God in Christ?

God Loves His Elect People

But now let us face the question positively: whom does God love? Whom did God eternally love? Whom did God love so greatly that He gave His only begotten Son?

John 3:16 answers: God loved the world, the cosmos. The general meaning of that term is that of harmony, orderly arrangement, beauty. Our word "cosmetics" is derived from it. And the term is used to denote the created universe, all creatures in heaven and on earth, as an organic whole, from the viewpoint of its order and harmony. This fundamental idea is never absent from the term in its various uses in Scripture. Often the word "world" in Scripture refers especially to mankind, or to a part of mankind. But because man is closely related to the world outside of him, in fact, stands at the head of the universe as we know it, lives and moves and develops in that universe, the word "world," even when it has man especially in view, never excludes the universe, but denotes mankind as it is organically related to the orderly whole of created things.

And while that same term "world" is used in Scripture to denote the whole of reprobate, wicked men, as they are in darkness, and as they subject all things in their universe to their own sinful mind and will, and use all things in the service of sin, it is used in John 3:16 to denote the sum total of the elect as an organic whole, the body of Christ, the church, again in connection with the whole universe. We must always remember that in His elect God does not merely save a number of individual men. God saves an organism, a whole world!

That implies, in the first place, that when God saves His elect people in Christ Jesus, He saves the real organism of the human race. Many individual men go lost; but mankind is saved. But, in the second place, God does even more. Not only the elect body of Christ is saved, but God saves and glorifies the whole creation. The whole creation, which groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, being subject to vanity because of sin and the curse, shall participate in the glorious liberty of the children of God. That entire world of God's elect and of all created things, organically conceived, God loved and saves. This fact, that God saves an organism, explains also why, though many individual creatures go lost, the world is nevertheless saved. When, for example, an orchardist goes out to prune his fruit trees, and presently a large heap of branches is accumulated on the ground and burned up, you certainly do not say that he destroyed his trees and his orchard. No, the trees are saved; the orchard is still standing. But some individual branches perished. Thus, not those men who are lost, but those who are saved constitute, together with the rest of creation, the world of God's love. When all the lost are separated from that world finally in the day of judgment, it is still the world which is saved. The world of John 3:16 is the world in Christ, the Firstborn of every creature, as God conceived of it in His eternal and sovereign counsel, and as it shall one day be revealed and shall appear in perfect harmony and heavenly beauty and glory, united in the Son of God.

That world God loved

taken from:
"GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD...."

by Prof. Homer C. Hoeksema

[lionovjudah]

Shame on you when you criticize brothers for standing for Gospel once for all delivered to the saints,Shame on you when you refuse to say a word about ones like Ponter and PJ who spends there time promoting lies like common grace, and God loves the reprobate and all kinds of doctrine of devil's, hypocrites be ashamed and humble yourselves and repent...Ivor Thomas..

Can I ask something? Who is Ponter and PJ? Am I suppose to know who these people are?

Ivor, why so violent brother? Please tell me I need to understand where this violent hatred rests while wrapping yourself in the Robe if Christ? Seems kind of contradictory no? Enough with the cliches ok, I personally have heard enough to last a lifetime. Bring down the wrath of God Ivor. Call fire from Heavan on those hypocrites and doctrine of devil worshippers. Seperate the sheep and the goats. You are teaching me how much hatred there is in God ivor. Tell me againhow much He hates. Tell me who He hates, just tell me all about the hating god you worship please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell em how much he enjoyed bashing the heads of babies. Tell me how to cut all the scripture out about His love, His long suffering, His providence, His care, His covenant, His sacrafice, His comapssion, His healing, His redemption, His Reknewal, His ransom, His atonement, His resurrectuion, His life, His miracles.

I used to worry when I heard all these cliches, now they are common place and have absolutle no effect.

Joe

[Skeuos Eleos]

Shame on you when you criticize brothers for standing for Gospel once for all delivered to the saints,Shame on you when you refuse to say a word about ones like Ponter and PJ who spends there time promoting lies like common grace, and God loves the reprobate and all kinds of doctrine of devil's, hypocrites be ashamed and humble yourselves and repent...Ivor Thomas..

Ouch! Ok, I've had enough of banging my head against the wall. It seems that nothing I say makes any difference. I have given you every opportunity to no avail. Now I WILL question your integrity. But I will do more than this: LET THE READER DECIDE WHETHER THIS MAN IS TO BE TRUSTED.

Let wisdom prevail.

Martin

[lionovjudah]

Here is another answer


And Noah had two sons, shem and ham.

[harald]

Joe. Paul was indeed a minister of reconciliation. Which means he proclaimed the reconciliation between holy God and sinful men, God's elect, in the Person and death of Jesus Christ.

And I am not one to say we must accept a false teaching.

Good to hear you say so.

So why you would be a follower of Paul confuses me.

Are three imperative sentences from Paul's Spirit-inspired pen not enough?

1Co 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Phi 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example.


Paul spent more time praising Christ than anathamizing people.

True. I have never claimed anything to the contrary.


Paul was much more than a violent accusor.

Why do you say thusly about Paul?


Plus, may i ask what good does it do to make a weaker brother stumble by using Pauls very few examples of being miserable as an excuse to confemn people?


You may ask whatever you please, Joe. But now I do not exactly understand. In what way have you stumbled? Have you fallen into some specific sin? And to what refer you by "Pauls very few examples of being miserable"? And, are you accusing me of "condemning people"?


I will go on record and say one who accuses me of worshipping a lie of Satan, or trampling the blood of Christ, or lost, or damned, or mocking God because I have a belief that I have not fully had revealed or taught to me should check their necksize because there is probably a millstone being made for them right now.

Have I accused you of any of the above? At least I cannot now recall. But if I would accuse you of any of them I would have to have very good grounds for doing so. The same applies to whosoever else of course.


I will no longer feel the need to reach this epignosis you speak of in all things by parroting others.

Joe. Above you made a solemn profession to be of Christ. Christ inspired Paul to drive home the importance of epignosis to the body of Christ. How come then you say such as the above? It is not I who came up with epignosis, it was Christ via the Spirit, by Paul. I simply repeat.


Plus I am not going to speak for Paul Harald. I do not know what he would do, but he didnt go around teaching by anathamizing.

No, he did not. But sometimes when he was teaching he was led to anathematize. It cannot be denied. And when he so did he did not do wrong. As for me I have not anathematized, nor do I feel as having a right to do so. Except to quote Paul's anathema when appropriate.


And another thing why does toleration have to equal listening and dialoguing with humbleness?

I cannot recall I have said these are equal. I have more in mind a toleration which amounts to active compromise of the truth, which is sin. A flirting with grievous error.


Again, the battle is not ours, it is the Lords.


Both and. If I am involved in battle then it is also mine, and my concern as well. Judas in his epistle exhorts me as well, I trust, to earnestly contend for the faith once having been delivered to the set apart ones.


I remember when you came to this forum, Joe. You came with all guns blazing, so it seemed to me. As though you wanted to show us here something, or teach us a lesson. Quoting fine religious phrases from John Newton and maybe also some other past "evangelical stalwarts". Now all of a sudden you are whining about wanting to learn from others here, and talking much about humbleness. How will you have it??


Harald

[lionovjudah]

Joe. Paul was indeed a minister of reconciliation. Which means he proclaimed the reconciliation between holy God and sinful men, God's elect, in the Person and death of Jesus Christ.

And I am not one to say we must accept a false teaching.

Good to hear you say so.

So why you would be a follower of Paul confuses me.

Are three imperative sentences from Paul's Spirit-inspired pen not enough?

1Co 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Phi 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example.


Paul spent more time praising Christ than anathamizing people.

True. I have never claimed anything to the contrary.


Paul was much more than a violent accusor.

Why do you say thusly about Paul?


Plus, may i ask what good does it do to make a weaker brother stumble by using Pauls very few examples of being miserable as an excuse to confemn people?


You may ask whatever you please, Joe. But now I do not exactly understand. In what way have you stumbled? Have you fallen into some specific sin? And to what refer you by "Pauls very few examples of being miserable"? And, are you accusing me of "condemning people"?


I will go on record and say one who accuses me of worshipping a lie of Satan, or trampling the blood of Christ, or lost, or damned, or mocking God because I have a belief that I have not fully had revealed or taught to me should check their necksize because there is probably a millstone being made for them right now.

Have I accused you of any of the above? At least I cannot now recall. But if I would accuse you of any of them I would have to have very good grounds for doing so. The same applies to whosoever else of course.


I will no longer feel the need to reach this epignosis you speak of in all things by parroting others.

Joe. Above you made a solemn profession to be of Christ. Christ inspired Paul to drive home the importance of epignosis to the body of Christ. How come then you say such as the above? It is not I who came up with epignosis, it was Christ via the Spirit, by Paul. I simply repeat.


Plus I am not going to speak for Paul Harald. I do not know what he would do, but he didnt go around teaching by anathamizing.

No, he did not. But sometimes when he was teaching he was led to anathematize. It cannot be denied. And when he so did he did not do wrong. As for me I have not anathematized, nor do I feel as having a right to do so. Except to quote Paul's anathema when appropriate.


And another thing why does toleration have to equal listening and dialoguing with humbleness?

I cannot recall I have said these are equal. I have more in mind a toleration which amounts to active compromise of the truth, which is sin. A flirting with grievous error.


Again, the battle is not ours, it is the Lords.


Both and. If I am involved in battle then it is also mine, and my concern as well. Judas in his epistle exhorts me as well, I trust, to earnestly contend for the faith once having been delivered to the set apart ones.


I remember when you came to this forum, Joe. You came with all guns blazing, so it seemed to me. As though you wanted to show us here something, or teach us a lesson. Quoting fine religious phrases from John Newton and maybe also some other past "evangelical stalwarts". Now all of a sudden you are whining about wanting to learn from others here, and talking much about humbleness. How will you have it??


Harald

I have been humbled by God Harald. I am not whining at all. I was not accusing you of the specific issues I mentioned. But I realized that perhaps this epignosis may not be exactly what you claim it is. We can neve exhaust the Godhead harald. And Paul never elevated himself above Christ. So if I find an apparant contradiction in Pauls methods and Christs, I have to follow our Lord. IF paul heard that statement about following him, he would be "apauled" (littel humor there). My stumbling is the result of being made to feel inadequate. And non elect because of my lack of understanding. Now I realized that is wrong for me to think that way. Again, we MUST contend for the faith.
Unfortunately some deal with issues very poorly. Some are very attacking . While they say they are acting in love, their speech and conduct does not seem to reflect this. On the other hand some are so soft and wishy washy, error is never corrected, its seriousness is not shown, and it spreads.

We need to have a mixture of patience and firmness. In 2 Timothy 2:24-26 we read: “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”

For those who are ignorant of what the scriptures teach, then we need to show them what the scriptures do in fact say. For the 'slow of hearing' then firmness is needed. Paul scolded the Corinthians for division, for tolerating immorality, and for abusing the Lord's Supper; then in each case he retaught the will of God. However for the rebellious it is appropriate to publicly rebuke, name and withdraw fellowship. This was the method of Paul with regards to Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:18-20.

In everything we are to act in a spirit of humility. One of the greatest issues Paul was to confront was that of circumcision. In Acts 15:1,2 we read he had a sharp dispute with the Judaisers. Nevertheless as we read the account we find that he did not make an inflexible stand boasting he was an Apostle and then turn around and withdraw fellowship with the false teachers. Rather he took the matter to trusted brethren and consulted with them. The result of his humble attitude was that truth was upheld and the matter was resolved peacefully.

We need also to have the humility to consult faithful brethren. They may counsel us that we are in fact pursuing a matter of indifference or they may encourage us to keep standing for the truth, no matter what the opposition.

Grace and Peace

Joe

[GraceAmbassador]

Okay, let's take a vote:

Those who believe this thread should continue reply "yes it should continue".

Those who think it is impossble to go back to the focal point reply: "this thread should be closed".

Note that if you answer "yes", unless you are another moderator, I expect you to be able to bring the thread back to its focal point

This is not democracy... I just want you to know that I am just trying to make you reflect if this is worth trying.

Just this time!

Milt

[Ivor Thomas]

Ouch! Ok, I've had enough of banging my head against the wall. It seems that nothing I say makes any difference. I have given you every opportunity to no avail. Now I WILL question your integrity. But I will do more than this: LET THE READER DECIDE WHETHER THIS MAN IS TO BE TRUSTED.

Let wisdom prevail.

Martin

This is a blatant attack, I cannot help what you believe,Nether the less if the Lord so wills that what you speak against me is justified so be it. but i would'nt like to be in your shoes if it is not. Ivor Thomas..

[harald]

Joe. I would want to reply in detail to your last post to me. But must go to bed. But shall say a few thing nonetheless before I go. You said

I was not accusing you of the specific issues I mentioned.

Thank you, Joe.

But I realized that perhaps this epignosis may not be exactly what you claim it is. We can neve exhaust the Godhead harald.

I cannot recall that I have made so much of a claim as to what I believe epignosis is. I do recall I said the word in itself means full knowledge or thorough knowledge or detailed knowledge or something closely synonymous (perhaps in some context "acknowledging"). By bringing up epignosis I was not referring to exhausting the Godhead. In the Greek NT according to an e-Sword search I did this word occurs 21 times. Most of them in Paul's letters. Here is the search result, and it informs by what word(s) it has been translated in KJV in different verses. So you will see that epignosis is not a word used exclusively in reference to God and His Divine attributes. Especially in Paul's later epistles is epignosis stressed. I mean Eph., Col. , 1 and 2 Tim. and Titus. Here often in connection with "mystery" truth. It is in these epistles where epignosis as good as always has the meaning of thorough or detailed or accurate knowledge. Emphasis being on doctrinal knowledge. As distinct from a cognate word Paul also uses often, gnosis, which more has the emphasis on experiential knowledge (of God, Christ, the Spirit, spiritual things). Both types of knowledge, gnosis and epignosis, are important according to Paul.


G1922
ἐπίγνωσις
epignōsis
Total KJV Occurrences: 21

knowledge, 16

Rom_1:28, Rom_3:20, Rom_10:2, Eph_1:17, Eph_4:13, Col_3:9-10 (4), 1Ti_2:4, 2Ti_3:7, Heb_10:26, 2Pe_1:2-3 (2), 2Pe_1:8, 2Pe_2:20

acknowledging, 3

2Ti_2:25, Tit_1:1, Phm_1:6

acknowledged, 1

2Co_1:14

acknowledgment, 1
Col_2:2


I hope I may be able to reply further to your post another time.



Harald

[Robert R. Higby]

OK, let's stop the personal accusations and close this thread. I agree with you Milt! I'm not going to defend one person against another; I'm sure that some are more in the right than others--based on what I have read. But we have to get past all this and back to the issues. It is what the Lord wants beyond all doubt!

[Eileen]

Close this thread if the focal point is simply what John Calvin thought and wrote on John 3:16.

The study of God's love as His nature and an attribute is certainly worth studying. Perhaps in a different thread..

Thanks
Eileen~

[doctr_of_grace]

It seems that Calvin is no longer the issue here. It seems that the Bible is no longer the issue here. It seems it is merely an exchange of insults.

I was very much disturbed by what Martin said to me. I seem to have nothing to offer so I am bowing out of this conversation. It is Brandans forum and up to him as to whether this goes on or not. Martin your apology is merely words in my opinion. (is that an insult?) ... nope it is what i have observed. You say you are sorry for insulting folks then turn around and insult. If I am guilty of insulting you please demonstrate it. I have tried very hard to not be personally attacking.

You said I threw up a strawman argument when I said the advocates of common grace believe in a universal "love" of God ... THAT IS THE DEFINATION of common grace. EXCUSE ME!!! Now that sorta ticked me off and I merely asked you if a lesser love is still love and get slammed yet again.

Anyways ... I am done ... this isn't accomplishing anything positive.

My dear sister Eileen ... good to hear from you again and some GREAT questions and replies ... I look forward to further discussion in another thread.

Out of this one for good ... Jan

[Brandan Kraft]

This thread is now officially closed.

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks, Jan. I hope and trust that you will continue once this is all sorted out and straightened out. We need to get back to the issues of our time; the red herring sprung on us in this thread has diverted us from the gospel. May the Lord take it all away!