Tags
calvinism, calvinist, christian, christianity, eternity, God, gospel, J. C. Ryle, Jesus Christ, John Calvin, John Piper, love, religion, the gospel
Question 1: Who used the exact words in the title of this post as a major heading in one of his recent sermons?
Answer: John Piper, a self-described 7-point Calvinist, who’s preaching through the gospel of John right now. In his exposition of John 3:16, Piper emphasized that the love described in this well-known verse is indiscriminate, and concludes:
We may, therefore, say to every human being, “God loves you. And this is how he loves you: He gave his Son to die, so that if you would believe, your sins would be forgiven and you would have eternal life.”
Okay, maybe you missed that one. Let’s try another question.
Question 2: Who said this?
To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, “God loves you, and Christ has died for you.”
Answer: J.C. Ryle, another Calvinist, in this article on election.
I wanted to point out those statements to say this. Even though Ryle and Piper are Calvinists, not every one of my Calvinist friends would agree with them. Some would say that it’s not appropriate to tell everyone indiscriminately that God loves them. I understand that, but I find it unfortunate.
Every facet of God’s character is complex, and His love is no exception. It’s not easy to understand or explain God’s love. That’s why D.A. Carson devoted an entire book to what he calls the The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God
Those who would agree with Piper and Ryle, and those who would disagree, can both make some valid, biblical arguments for their views. As always, caution and humility are in order.
I’ve rambled a bit, but my goal was simply to express a concern I have about how we sometimes portray God. It’s easy for any of us to distort or misrepresent God’s character, even if unintentionally. I’ll close with an excerpt from the writing of John Calvin, and an appeal to anyone reading this who might be an unbeliever.
John Calvin seems to have believed that there is at least some sense in which God loves the whole world (although there are those who would debate that assertion). This excerpt is taken from a commentary on the same well-known passage John Piper was preaching from, John 3:16.
That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
John 3:16 clearly states that God loved “the world,” and “the world” is a reference, according to Calvin, to “all men without exception.” Calvin referred to John 3:16 in a similar fashion in other commentaries and sermons. (See here for more examples.)
If you’re not a Christian, I simply want to say that God loves you (although The Goal of God’s Love May Not Be What You Think It Is.) He sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world, including yours. If you repent of your sin and put your trust in Christ, you will never die. That is the most amazing news in the world. In the words of one of the hymns we sang at church yesterday,
Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!Well might the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.
But there is a grave danger embedded in this good news. If you reject God’s gracious offer, if you take the atoning sacrifice of Christ lightly, you will not live, but you will die—eternally.
…how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (Hebrews 2:3)
I plead with you not to make the mistake of neglecting God’s gracious offer. Do yourself a favor and find out more about it.
who am i? 
I don’t think the majority of “Calvinist” I read have such a problem with God loves you, as much as what follows after that is often an appeal to be saved because of what God will give you, rather than because we are a sinners in peril of judgment.
THe character of God is in perfect balance and so His love and His judgment are not in conflict.
I would agree that the majority of Calvinists today would probably agree with Piper and Ryle. I do, however, still meet and interact with some who do not, influenced by men like John Gerstner and A.W. Pink. Thanks for visiting and taking time to comment!
While we can say [and “ought” to say as George Whitefield also said], with scriptural and historical warrant, that God loves every one of our listeners. We do not want to merely say that, as I am sure you would agree. That would be as equally as reductionistic as those who merely tell sinners that God is angry with them, and will punish them if they do not repent. We want to compassionately assure unbelieving sinners that God is both willing and prepared [since Christ died for their sins] to save them, as well as warn them to flee from the coming wrath, under which they currently abide.
Tony
p.s. Incidentally, Carson’s book on the love of God is available online for free [click].
“We do not want to merely say…that God loves every one of our listeners.”
I do completely agree, Tony. That is exactly the kind of reductionism that I try hard to avoid here. You articulated what I was thinking much better than I did myself.
Also, thanks for the link to Carson’s book. I hope everyone will download it and read it!
It is interesting that you referred to David Ponter’s Website, Calvin and Calvinism. David is a brilliant young man that I have conversed with on a number of occasions. I have never won a debate against him. For one thing, he is single, an avid reader and has alot of time on his hands.
I am currently reading G. Michael Thomas’ book on the extent of the atonement, and find that the subject matter on your post needs to be discussed further in light of the current resurgence and the propensity of some of our younger brothers towards hyper-Calvinism.
Bob,
I’m familiar with Thomas’ book, and would like to read it at some point, although as I grow older I’m also growing less and less optimistic about having any chance of reading all of the books that I want (and need!) to. I do agree with your suggestion that in light of some ongoing tendencies toward hyper-Calvinism, we need to continue to engage in careful thinking and discussion on this topic.
I’m also familiar with David’s website, and visit occasionally. I really appreciate the research that David and others have done. As for debating with David, I may have an advantage over you. Realizing how sharp he is, I would never attempt a debate with him in the first place, and would therefore never lose to him in a debate!
Thanks for visiting, Bob. I enjoyed browsing your blog, by the way, and dude—you may be just a man, but I am impressed with anyone who played college football at age 51, no matter how small the school was!
Oh, the football. Just a dream. but by a one year grueling preparation and the grace of God, I was able to experience it. Here is a short story and video clip if you are interested.
http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/5ffa9e81-80ce-0971-0024-522e32e94eb0
I love the Sikeston area. I used to Pastor in a little town called Ellsinore. Quite an experience. Also Pastored in Brooklyn, New York. different experience.
I praying right now about where the Lord may lead me as far as Pastoring.
If I ever get down in your area, i may look you up.
Great blog by the way.
Thanks for that link, Bob. What a great story. You probably did more for those young guys than you’ll ever know.
It’s interesting that you used to pastor a church in this area. How long ago was that? We actually have a couple driving over to our church all the way from Ellsinore (as often as they can) for our Sunday morning services.
Thanks for your kind words of encouragement, too. If you ever do make it down this way, give me a call. I’m in the phone book.
If we come back to the topic for a minute. 🙂
I actually know a lot of Calvinists, not all hyper even, who hesitate to say “God loves you” to a sinner, and this in the context of even the most general conversation which has has for its goal, witnessing to the unbeliever.
Ive been around in Calvinist circles for a long time now. A lot of Calvinists will talk about God loving all men with a general love, which finds expression in rain and sunshine etc. However, they will hesitate at the implication that this love has a salvific component. By that I mean, as a view or regard to their eternal well-being.
For over a decade I heard mockery of the old “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” There were complaints that we cannot tell a sinner that God loves them, specifically. Folk like Piper used to be on the edge in his theology. Perhaps it is gaining more mainstream acceptance which is good. On the other hand, hypercalvinism is gaining ground too.
For over a decade I was told that the old starting line of the 4 Spiritual laws “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you” was something to be shunned and laughed at.
For the longest time I was taught that all we could say were things like God loves sinners in the abstraction, sinners like you etc etc.
If we take John 3:16 seriously, then the world is loved, the world of fallen humanity (ie all mankind, not simply some of all kinds of elect of the world). In to this world God sent his Son as an expression of that love to obtain a means whereby all and any penitent sinner may be saved.
For some of us, it is striking that Christ started his discussion with Nicodemus with this love of God to fallen humanity: which is totally contrary to those who scoff at the above line from the old 4 Spiritual Laws.
If we take Luke 7:30 seriously, along with other statements Acts 20:27 (where Paul connects the purpose of God with the Gospel and the Kingdom preached).
The plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel is GOOD NEWS. It is never bad news. It is a wonderful plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel to sinners. his plan includes the declarations contained in John 3:16-17, and it is the grace of God which has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11) etc etc.
I think there are some movements and changes happening in the wider Reformed community, but there is still a lot of folk stuck in the middle, ever hesitant of speaking of God’s actual non-hypothetical love to the actual non-hypothetical sinner standing in front of them in the way Jesus did to Nicodemus.
Thanks Barry for the post and for what you are doing.
Thanks,
David
Thank you, David, for your helpful comment. I do hope that discussions like this will help all of us wrestle with this issue. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not just academic. Our understanding of God’s love and his gracious disposition toward every individual has profound pastoral and evangelistic implications.
I really appreciate this post, Barry – both the words and the tone.
I’m currently reading through Edwards’ work, Charity and It’s Fruits, in preparation for a study on Christian Charity. One of the great things we need to understand and remember is God’s love even for His enemies, which is the basis for His command that we, like Him, love our enemies.
What I cannot understand about His love, I need to entrust to Him (while always seeking greater understanding), and live in light of what is clear.
Thanks, Laurie. It does seem clear, as you just said, that the whole point of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:43-48 is that we should love those who despise us, in precisely the same way our Father does.
Pingback: Christian Carnival CCLXXXVIII – Caravan Route Edition « Jevlir Caravansary
Barry:
Great post, brother!
David:
I have to confess, I’ve mocked the “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life bit” within the last few weeks. However, the mockery had to do with the “wonderful plan” bit, not the love part. I was emphasizing the fact the Lord Jesus calls us to take up the cross, die to ourselves daily, and live for Him if are to follow Him. That doesn’t sound “wonderful” to most folks. Hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
Thanks for visiting, James. I value your feedback and appreciate your encouragement.
Hey there James,
Sure I understand what you are saying, the Christian life comes with a cost.
But even so, salvation is wonderful. Salvation brings blessing, joy, peace, rest, love. Salvation corrects and restores all that was twisted in Adam.
Make sense?
David
David,
How dare you come “right back to the topic”. Oh, it is you! How in the world do you find this stuff. It must be that coin in the middle of your head. 🙂
I have enjoyed Calvin and Calvinists. Thank you for all of your work. It is such a worthy effort and will pay rich dividends for those studying the subject.
Thanks again.
Now, what about the thought that Jesus, talking to Nicodemus, two Jews, about the fact that God loves more than just the Jews. The whole world, as in, the “whole world went out to be taxed”, etc. i.e. the Roman World? When did that get changed?
Anyway, Perhaps we should go to another format rather than take up Barry’s comments section.
Bob
Hey there Bob,
I don’t think that’s a problem. You are referring to Luke 2:1, a few things need to be considered.
The first is genre and authorial intent. As soon as I read your post, I thought of the fact that Luke is rehearsing someone else’s words. That is important. Is he making a theological statement? Is he making a sort of recording of an historical statement/fact?
The latter I think. Then I would ask: does this then “norm” John’s use of Kosmos in John 3, which is not a recording of an historical statement, etc.
Secondly, author. Luke is focusing on a history, John a theology. Different author’s different writing styles, sometimes different vocab, and on and on.
Next, the Greek in Luke is oikoumena, the inhabited earth. John uses Kosmos.
If we look at it from another angle. Clearly, oikoumena does not denote the Romans (or Gentiles) in contradistinction to the Jews. Otherwise Luke is not saying that that the Jews were included in this taxation program.
So to answer your question: “The whole world, as in, the “whole world went out to be taxed”, etc. i.e. the Roman World? When did that get changed?”
It changed as soon as one notices the different, genre, context, word, and author etc.
Does that help?
Thanks for the compliment regarding the C&C site. Its been hard work and yet a labour of love.
Thanks,
David
I should clarify something: I think you are referring to Luke 2:1. If not, then my arguments are subject to revision.
Thanks
David
Ok. that was off the top of my head. I guess, I was questioning as to “when did that change” in regards to you. I had thought that at one time that was where you stood. Maybe I am wrong. Referring to the Old Theology List.
Well, then let’s stick with John.
John 1:10 – Was there anyone in the world that knew Him?
John 1:29 – Did he take away the sin of the whole world? Am I forgetting something here? Would not that entail universalism?
John 3:17 – Will the whole world be saved?
that should suffice for now. I ask these, not because I think you haven’t already debated them. I am sure you have and know you will have a ready answer.
thanks David.
PS
I just began reading John Calvin, a Heart for Devotion, Doctrine and Doxologym edited by Burk Parson. And if the intro is any clue, the rest of the book may be compelling in the direction you are talking about. Have you read it?
Hey Bob,
You ask:
Ok. that was off the top of my head. I guess, I was questioning as to “when did that change” in regards to you. I had thought that at one time that was where you stood. Maybe I am wrong. Referring to the Old Theology List.
David: when I was “high,” I understood John’s “world” of 3:16 platonically, the kind of thing called man, and therefore by extension, all kinds of men. I realized some time ago, about 9 years, that that was implausible and really was code for a connotated meaning of elect of all kinds.
You say:
Well, then let’s stick with John.
John 1:10 – Was there anyone in the world that knew Him?
David: It might be best to define John’s meaning of “kosmos” first.
Apart from references to the physical word, etc, for John’s main use of world, I define it, following Carson and more modern exegetes as the living apostate world of mankind in opposition to God and his church.
> John 1:10 – Was there anyone in the world that knew Him? John 1:29 – Did he take away the sin of the whole world? Am I forgetting something here? Would not that entail universalism?John 3:17 – Will the whole world be saved?<
David: It does not say the world will be saved, but that Christ was sent into the world to save the world. Greek again has subjunctive with hina clause. Subjunctives normally denote probability, with should, might, could, etc. Christ came into the world with the purpose to save it, ie to seek its salvation. Cf, John 5:34.
Bob: that should suffice for now. I ask these, not because I think you haven’t already debated them. I am sure you have and know you will have a ready answer.
thanks David.
David: The trickiest one will be John 1:29 for sure. There most folk read the verse as removal of sin, or something like that, not to bear and carry. And of course, lexically there are problematics on that as well.
Bob:
I just began reading John Calvin, a Heart for Devotion, Doctrine and Doxologym edited by Burk Parson. And if the intro is any clue, the rest of the book may be compelling in the direction you are talking about. Have you read it?
David: No Ive not read it. The spiel about it didnt indicate it was relevant to my studies. Care to explain?
Thanks,
David
David: when I was “high,” I understood John’s “world” of 3:16 platonically, the kind of thing called man, and therefore by extension, all kinds of men. I realized some time ago, about 9 years, that that was implausible and really was code for a connotated meaning of elect of all kinds.
bob: Well, you should study when you are not “high”. It always helps me.
(sorry, couldn’t resist. I know what you mean. You aren’t a high-Calvinist.)
Here is a quote from the foreword of that book:
“Where Calvinistic truth is presented as though there is no love in God to sinners as sinners- that His only regard is for the elect–it is no wonder that evangelistic preaching falters. The preacher has to be possessed with a love for all or he will not represent the Savior in whose name he speaks. The men of Calvinistic beliefe who have stood out as evangelists and missionaries have always been examples of this. ……..”
“The best purpose will have been served (by reading this book) if the reader comes to the conclusion, ‘I ought to be reading Calvin himself!’ ”
Regards,
bob
Bob, I wanted to make a crack (pun intended) about David being “high” but you beat me to it!
bob: Well, you should study when you are not “high”. It always helps me.
David: Well au contraire, many a time I have had the best insights when I was high.
I gave you that one Bob. By “High” I follow Daniel’s schema, roughly, low, moderate, high and hypercalvinist.
Bob:(sorry, couldn’t resist. I know what you mean. You aren’t a high-Calvinist.)
David: Following Daniel, Hypers are the Gillite / Hoeksema groups, which now include the Clarkians. Highs are the classic John Murray type of Calvinist.
Moderates are classic Augustinians to early Reformers, including moderates like Howe, Charnock, Bunyan etc.
Daniel has a category called Low, but there are no Lows that Ive ever met.
Bob: Here is a quote from the foreword of that book:
“Where Calvinistic truth is presented as though there is no love in God to sinners as sinners- that His only regard is for the elect–it is no wonder that evangelistic preaching falters. The preacher has to be possessed with a love for all or he will not represent the Savior in whose name he speaks. The men of Calvinistic beliefe who have stood out as evangelists and missionaries have always been examples of this. ……..”
David: Thats good, but me being a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy, Calvin also spoke of the image-bearing and redemption of all men as a motive to incline us to active evangelism.
I will look at the book.
Thanks,
David
Interesting discussion on God’s love. John Calvin spoke of three degrees of God’s love in his sermons on Deuteronomy:
“It is true that St John says generally, that [God] loved the world. And why? For Jesus Christ offers himself generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer . . . Thus we see three degrees of the love that God has shown us in our Lord Jesus Christ. The first is in respect of the redemption that was purchased in the person of him that gave himself to death for us, and became accursed to reconcile us to God his Father. That is the first degree of love, which extends to all men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ reaches out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to him. But there is a special love for those to whom the gospel is preached: which is that God testifies to them that he will make them partakers of the benefit that was purchased for them by the death and passion of his Son. And forasmuch as we be of that number, therefore we are double bound already to our God: here are two bonds which hold us as it were [closely] tied to him. Now let us come to the third bond, which depends upon the third love that God shows us: which is that he not only causes the gospel to be preached to us, but also makes us to feel the power thereof, so as we know him to be our Father and Saviour, not doubting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, who brings us the gift of the Holy Spirit, to reform us after his own image.”
See more at “Word for the World: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement” (Paul Hartog), available at: http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf
That’s a helpful excerpt, illustrating my original point about the complexity of the subject of God’s love. Thanks for posting it and the link to Mr. Hartog’s paper on the extent of the atonement. I’ve downloaded it and will try to read through it later.
Pingback: Calvin, Carson, and Piper on John 3:16 « who am i?
I really enjoyed your article. However, I wanted to interject that labelling a follower of Christ with anything else but being a “believer” does not probably serve any worthy purpose. In my own circle, I am often labelled a four-and-a-half-point calvinist, but I am offended being called a Calvinist. Period. Calvin did not die for me. Jesus did. I read the entire “Institutes” by Calvin (in French since I speak, read and write it fluently), but even Calvin was not entirely calvinist. I wish fellow believers in Yahweh would stop the name calling and focused on pleading with the unsaved to be reconciled unto God as they should.