The Reformed Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement

This is a post that my friend David did over at theology online. I really liked it and hope that it will shed some light on those who refuse to believe that the unlimited view of the atonement is merely Arminian or by deviant Amyraldians. Take a look and also take a look at the links included within the post. David has compiled quite the list that is overwhelmingly in the favor of the Reformed TRUE understanding of the atonement. Here it is, enjoy:

For the last few months I have been working my way through some rare out-of-print works by Henry Bullinger.

These works include:

Henry Bullinger, Common Places of Christian Religion, (Imprinted at London by Tho. East, and H. Middleton, for George Byshop, 1572).

Henrie Bullinger, The Summe of the Foure Euangelistes Comprehending both the course of the historie, and also severall points of doctrine set foorth in the same, pointing foorth as it were with the hand, that IESVS is CHRIST, the only perfect and sufficient Saviour of all the Faithfull, (Imprinted at London: William Ponsonby at the signe of the Bishops head, 1582).

[Henry Bullinger], Looke from Adam, And behold The Protestants Faith and Religion (London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, for Thomas Pavier, and are to be sold at his shop in Ivie Lane, 1624).

Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ. (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, Dwellyng ouer Aldersgate, 1573).

[Henry Bullinger], An Holsome Antidotus or counter-poyson agaynst the pestylent heresye and secte of the Anabaptistes newly translated out of the Latin into Englysh by John Veron, 1570.

Henry Bullynger, A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children against the pestiferous secte of the Anabaptytses. set furthe by the famouse Clerke, Henry Bullyinger: & nowe translated out of Laten into Englysh by Jhon Verone (Imprynted at Worceter by Jhon Oswen, 1551).

These works have added a lot of useful material for my Bullinger file. What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise. When it comes to the Web’s many many uber-Calvinists and uber-apologists who insist that this doctrine was either invented by heretical Arminians or by deviant Amyraldians, it is now clear that they are just wrong. Some of our internet cowboys need to get their head out of their posterior on this point. One may not agree with the doctrine. One may claim it is illogical. One may claim it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Predestination. One may claim that later Calvinists refined and smoothed out earlier inconsistencies. One can think and believe all that. What one cannot do is be dishonest about the plain and undeniable historicity of the doctrine in early Reformed theology. To do that is just to engage in mindless smear campaigns and sectarian polemics. When we add other early Reformation leaders like Luther, Zwingli, Musculus, Gualther, Calvin and many others, it is either willful stubbornness or willful ignorance to deny the evidence of history. When folk over there at Puritanboard or on Paltalk or on the various boards out there, call the doctrine of ‘double-reference’ theory of the atonement “blasphemy” those persons exhibit some of the worst forms of ignorance imaginable.

It’s time that our uber-calvinists out there on the big wide web leave behind their sectarianism and arrogance and rethink their approach to Reformed theology and to those who deviate from them the merest nanometer.

David

Also...here are the links to the quite large database of quotes and references compiled by David on the Reformed view of the atonement, love of God, desire of God, etc.

THE Index

Read More......

Off to Alaska

Tomorrow afternoon I will be flying off to Alaska to see family for Thanksgiving. I will have internet access but will obviously not be as often as I would like. So, have fun commenting and I will desperately try and keep up. We will soon have another post from Turretinfan that will continue our process of understanding the position of the atonement.

Hope all have a great Thanksgiving.

To continue our thoughts on this subject I think David asked a great question that never got a response:

I would still like to know from TF what does "created order" mean? Trees, rocks? Created humans? Any non-elect included? And if kosmos means created order is consistently created order in 16 and 17 in all the instances? if it changes why?

To continue on this thought I would like any to answer this:

Here is what Kittell's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament speaks of Kosmos...which by the way is one of the most respected NT Dictionary there is:

Contents: A. Non-biblical Usage: 1. κόσμος == That which is Well Assembled; 2. κόσμος == Order between Men; 3. κόσμος == Order generally; 4. κόσμος == Adornment; 5. κόσμος == World I, Development and Meaning of the Greek View of the Cosmos; 6. κόσμος == World II, God and the Cosmos for the Greeks; 7. κόσμος as World in the Sense of Earth, Inhabited World, Humanity. B. κόσμος in the LXX. The Concept of the Cosmos in Judaism. C. κόσμος in the NT: 1. General. κόσμος in the Sense Adornment; 2. κόσμος == World I, as the Universe, the Sum of all Created Being; 3. κόσμος == World II, as the Abode of Men, the Theatre of History, the Inhabited World, the Earth; 4. κόσμος == World III, as Humanity, Fallen Creation, the Theatre of Salvation History.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (3:868). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Please enlighten where there is even one instance where world in the Greek means "world of the elect." Please exegete a verse that connotates this.

Read More......

Defending the "Universal" Intent of "Kosmos" in John 3:16

I need to do some "housecleaning" here. Here is how things will progress from here. I am going to do one last rebuttal of Turretinfan's arguments on John 3:16 and then we can continue in the comments section of this post. Turretinfan will then post another passage or verse that he would like to bring to attention, to try and show that Jesus died only for the elect, or more broadly, particular redemption alone. We will then continue on the next post just like we have with this series. What I also want to point out, is that Turretinfan and myself also email each other and I want all to know that posts and comments over the internet can seem "harsh" but I want all to know that we actually have had some very good, charitable conversations, over email, making sure that each other is not taking offense. So, if others think that we are "at each other's throats" this is not our intent or desire, it is just to discuss theology in an open forum for other's to engage in.

With that said, I need to also show, once again, what we believe on the atonement. I have gotten some emails and some comments (from others) that would seem to ask, "What do you believe again?" We would take what we feel is the normal reading (I know that Turretinfan will disagree that this is the normal reading, which is the reason for this debate) of John 1:29 that states:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29

So, we believe that Jesus on the cross took away the sins of the world. This death was a penal death, meaning that there is a condition based upon this "taking away" and that would be faith. So, Jesus is the noun, hilasmos (1 John 2:2), that takes away the sins of the entire world. But, the implication, or application for this death, is for the elect upon their belief on Jesus. This is in no way a "hypothetical death" but in reality is a death to take away the sins of the world, but will only be applied at the onset of belief. We believe that we follow the teachings of Dordt when it states:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.



I hope this clears up more on what we believe. We would stand beside all Calvinists and define Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints the exact same, as long as they are not putting forth a stand on hyperism in any of these. In regards to the middle, the "L", we would define Limited Atonement the exact same way, but we would remove that in the limited atonement aspect it is not "only" for the elect, but the atonement was for all, particularly for the elect. We can say particularly because when Jesus died he knew whom the Spirit would draw and whom the Spirit would seal and whom would be His bride (no more, no less). This part, this intention of the atonement, was the "joy that was set before him" (Hebrews 12).

As far as Turretinfan's post on John 3:16, I will put forth a rebuttal and then we can comment further, but I am guessing we will just say that we are going to have to "agree to disagree" and move on to another passage.

My hope in this is that all those reading would see that John 3:16 is not hardlined to mean the elect, but just the opposite. As we debate this topic further hopefully you will be able to see how we can believe that Christ died for all and not be univeralists, which really comes in the understanding of a penal payment, but we will save that for later. I want all to know, I used to be a hard lined limited atonement for the elect only guy. But, I had to ask myself, "What is the understanding of these passages in a reading without trying to put in my theological structure inside it?" Knowing that if I changed my view on John 3:16 and others, I would also need to restructure what I believed on the atonement. Can this fit? Can this make sense? Because I believe in John 10, Eph 5 and the like, that speak about a particular people in the atonement. Can I make the two mesh without destroying the continuity of the Scriptures? I beleive that I can, and the Scriptures do. Hopefully you will see "why?" as we move forward in the debate.

I first want to say that I am sorry if I misrepresented Turretinfan in anyway in this debate. I am not into strawmen and hate them, so I want him to point them out if I enter into a strawman in any way.

As far as his post, I will write some comments and then we can move on.

Turretinfan comments that in the Greek and the Latin that it could read, in regards to "hina" as "so." The problem with this is that this is not concrete, and even Calvin who was very well versed in both the Greek and Latin didn't even take it as such. Calvin says,

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.
Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:16). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Turretinfan, based on this interpretation of the passage then states, in one of his comments, that to say "so that those believing" is giving a more precise way of saying "world." He then uses an analogy by saying, "everyone, that is, everyone understanding rhetoric" showing his intent.

Here is the problem with this. John 3:16 doesn't read like that. It reads, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosover believes shall not perish.

There is something in between "everyone" and "that is everyone understanding rhetoric." So this does not flow how he would like. So we must ask, if we take Turretinfan's remarks and ask, "How does God show his love for sinners?" "How does a sinner know God loves him?" Because if you use this verse as Turretinfan would like us to believe, this shows love for only the elect not the reprobate.

But, the intent of John 3:16 is to say to everyone: "God loves you." How? He sent his Son. If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask, "How does God giving his Son to others show his love for me?"

Here is the best way I can show for an analogy. By the way, when using analogies you have to look at the verse we are discussing. John 3:16 does not give the full reformed view of the ordo salutis, therefore our analogies don't need to do so as well. So, Bnonn's statement that the analogies fall short because it doesn't talk about the "giving of faith" and the like is really not paramount to this discussion.

Analogy:

I love my whole church, so I send invitations to all for them to come to my birthday party. All those who come to my birthday party will enjoy the fellowship and not be alone at home not enjoying the fellowship.

So, when someone asks in my church, "How do I know that Seth loves me?" They can say,"He sent me an invitation"

What if someone doesn't come? I run into them the following week and we talk. Can they say, "I didn't come because you didn't invite me." No. I invited all to come.
This is how I showed all, that I loved them.

This doesn't mean I love all the same. Please do not read into this analogy other parts of the ordo salutis because that is not the intent of John 3:16. The intent of John 3:16 is to show, "How he loved the world" namely, by sending His Son.

The other part of Turretinfan's argument for "kosmos" really doesn't make sense to me. He states that it means "created order" and does not refer to "humanity." Here is actual comment:

In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.

I am not going to go through all of these verses, but will take a look at both John 7:4-7 and John 15:18.

For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.For not even His brothers were believing in Him. So Jesus said to them, My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 7:4-7

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
John 15:18

So who hates me? Who hated Jesus? Was it the "created order" or was it all of humanity as direct people? Jesus says in John 7 that if you show yourself to the world, the kosmos, then he shows what he is talking about: his specific brothers. He uses this and then tells us the same: The kosmos will hate you, and this is a specific people.

This is the same thing in John 12:47. Turretinfan says that this isn't in context but we can easily refute this being that it is the same author (John), same one being quoted (Jesus) and almost the exact same sentence structure in the Greek.

John 12:46,47 is speaking of God coming into the darkened humanity as a whole, so that the individual one in darkness can be saved. It is taking the whole and bringing it to the individual. I don't understand what is so difficult in understanding this, unless one is trying to bring forth an understanding because of theological convictions.

Jesus says, "I have come as Light into the world." Am I supposed to believe that He came for the created order? What does this mean? Did Jesus come for the rocks and trees? Or, Did Jesus come as the Light for the individuals in the world who love the darkness, so that those who believe in Him will live and not die?

I stand behind my reading of John 3:16 as stated before. God so loved the world, that is, those in darkness, all of them, that He sent his Son, the Light, into the darkened world, so that those who are in the dark, yet believe in Him would not be like those who stay in the dark and perish, but will look to the Light and have eternal life.

God is love, and this is his representation for the entire world to know that he is love, by him giving his Son for the entire world. Otherwise, no sinner, even the future elect, can know that Jesus died for them.

This is why Numbers 21 is brought forth in John 3. To show the love of God. God so loved all those bitten, that he provided a provision for them, so that when they looked they would be saved. If they didn't look, they weren't saved and it was their fault, not God's. Whether there were some who didn't look or not, is not the point, the point is God provided a provision for ALL THOSE THAT WERE BITTEN. To carry this to the usage in the New Testament would mean that God provided a provision in all those who have sinned.

Read More......

John Calvin on John 3:16

I figured while we wait I would go ahead and post Calvin's commentary on John 3:14-17. I think you will find some of the things said here is the same that we are purporting to all.

14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent. He explains more clearly why he said that it is he alone to whom heaven is opened; namely, that he brings to heaven all who are only willing to follow him as their guide; for he testifies that he will be openly and publicly manifested to all, that he may diffuse his power over men of every class. 60 To be lifted up means to be placed in a lofty and elevated situation, so as to be exhibited to the view of all. This was done by the preaching of the Gospel; for the explanation of it which some give, as referring to the cross, neither agrees with the context nor is applicable to the present subject. The simple meaning of the words therefore is, that, by the preaching of the Gospel, Christ was to be raised on high, like a standard to which the eyes of all would be directed, as Isaiah had foretold, (Isaiah 2:2.) As a type of this lifting up, he refers to the brazen serpent, which was erected by Moses, the sight of which was a salutary remedy to those who had been wounded by the deadly bite of serpents. The history of that transaction is well known, and is detailed in Numbers 21:9. Christ introduces it in this passage, in order to show that he must be placed before the eyes of all by the doctrine of the Gospel, that all who look at him by faith may obtain salvation. Hence it ought to be inferred that Christ is clearly exhibited to us in the Gospel, in order that no man may complain of obscurity; and that this manifestation is common to all, and that faith has its own look, by which it perceives him as present; as Paul tells us that a lively portrait of Christ with his cross is exhibited, when he is truly preached, (Galatians 3:1.)


The metaphor is not inappropriate or far-fetched. As it was only the outward appearance of a serpent, but contained nothing within that was pestilential or venomous, so Christ clothed himself with the form of sinful flesh, which yet was pure and free from all sin, that he might cure in us the deadly wound of sin. It was not in vain that, when the Jews were wounded by serpents, the Lord formerly prepared this kind of antidote; and it tended to confirm the discourse which Christ delivered. For when he saw that he was despised as a mean and unknown person, he could produce nothing more appropriate than the lifting up of the serpent, to tell them, that they ought not to think it strange, if, contrary to the expectation of men, he were lifted up on high from the very lowest condition, because this had already been shadowed out under the Law by the type of the serpent.

A question now arises: Does Christ compare himself to the serpent, because there is some resemblance; or, does he pronounce it to have been a sacrament, as the Manna was? For though the Manna was bodily food, intended for present use, yet Paul testifies that it was a spiritual mystery, (1 Corinthians 10:3.) I am led to think that this was also the case with the brazen serpent, both by this passage, and the fact of its being preserved for the future, until the superstition of the people had converted it into an idol, (2 Kings 18:4.) If any one form a different opinion, I do not debate the point with him.

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸ ν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

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.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses,

which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world. It is a confirmation of the preceding statement; for it was not in vain that God sent his own Son to us. He came not to destroy; and therefore it follows, that it is the peculiar office of the Son of God, that all who believe may obtain salvation by him. There is now no reason why any man should be in a state of hesitation, or of distressing anxiety, as to the manner in which he may escape death, when we believe that it was the purpose of God that Christ should deliver us from it. The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.
The word judge (πρίνω) is here put for condemn, as in many other passages. When he declares that he did not come to condemn the world, he thus points out the actual design of his coming; for what need was there that Christ should come to destroy us who were utterly ruined? We ought not, therefore, to look at any thing else in Christ, than that God, out of his boundless goodness chose to extend his aid for saving us who were lost; and whenever our sins press us — whenever Satan would drive us to despair — we ought to hold out this shield, that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because he has appointed his Son to be the salvation of the world.

When Christ says, in other passages, that he is come to judgment, (John 9:39;) when he is called a stone of offense, (1 Peter 2:7;) when he is said to be set for the destruction of many, (Luke 2:34:) this may be regarded as accidental, or as arising from a different cause; for they who reject the grace offered in him deserve to find him the Judge and Avenger of contempt so unworthy and base. A striking instance of this may be seen in the Gospel; for though it is strictly
the power of God for salvation to every one who believeth, (Romans 1:16,)

the ingratitude of many causes it to become to them death.. Both have been well expressed by Paul, when he boasts of

having vengeance at hand, by which he will punish all the adversaries of his doctrine after that the obedience of the godly shall have been fulfilled, (2 Corinthians 10:6)

The meaning amounts to this, that the Gospel is especially, and in the first instance, appointed for believers, that it may be salvation to them; but that afterwards believers will not escape unpunished who, despising the grace of Christ, chose to have him as the Author of death rather than of life.

Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Read More......

John 3:16: A Case for an Unlimited Reading of "World"

I really want to clear up the common misconception of us that call ourselves “6 Point Calvinists,” that is, that we are really 4 pointers or 4 1/2 point Calvinists. Which to be honest, I have no idea what 4 1/2 points means. The reason that we call ourselves 6 point Calvinists is because it is not that we merely accept the idea of unlimited expiation but we also vehemently adhere to particular redemption, that is, that Christ also died especially for the elect. It would be the same as the understanding that God loves all humanity, but especially the elect and that the Holy Spirit calls all of humanity to repentance, but effectively the elect alone. This is what we adhere to in the understanding of the atonement. Christ died for all (John 3:16) especially the elect (John 10).

Also, what I don’t want this to turn into is posts that just start listing out Scriptures and expect the others to “see it how I see it.” I have had this done to me in regards to debating Arminians and it gets very annoying to defend a bunch of Scripture quotations without exegesis. Let’s just suppose that any verse that says, “Christ died for all” or “ransomed for all” needs some explanation behind it and so do any verses that say “Christ died for the sheep” and “Christ died for the many.” This will help this debate in many ways.

Turretinfan has decided to take on probably the most difficult passage for the strictly limited expiation Calvinist to defend, and rightly so, as one will hopefully be able to see through this post. Turretinfan’s position on this is: God so loved the world, that is, the elect of the world, that He sent His Son.


There are a lot of uses of the term world when we look at the Bible. The term is “kosmos” and is used in the New Testament many times to mean “the evil world system” (1 John 2:15-17); the actual earth (Matthew 13:35); all of humanity (Mark 16:15), etc. So, we have to come to this Scripture and try and find what this means here in this context. Turretinfan’s position is that this term, world or "kosmos", means “elect” but I just find that wanting, and here is why:

When we read the verse it starts by lumping all people together: God so loved the world. This is the “one class” of all people, all humanity. Then John starts to put people in different classes by saying “those believing will not perish.” The opposite would then come to mean that there are some who won’t believe and will perish. So we have two classes of people who make up the world; those believing and those not believing. Those who will have eternal life and those who will perish. I have heard Texans say the same thing: There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who are Texans and those who wish they were Texans. If the term “kosmos” means “elect” then we have a real problem. This would mean that some of the elect will not believe and will perish. It would read like this:

God so loved the elect, that He gave His only Son that those (referring to the noun “world”) who believe will not be like those of the elect (referring back again to the noun, “world”) who don’t believe and perish (here is the problem…neither of us believe that the elect can perish), but will have eternal life.

As you read the rest of the text down to verse 21, John continues to differentiate between those in the world that God so loved. He uses terms like: He who believes, and doesn’t believe (verse 18); those practicing evil and those practicing truth (verse 20,21). Notice where the Light came: the world. The light came into the “kosmos” because God loves the “kosmos” to save the “kosmos.”

Further, we find this same sentence structure and theological stance taken in John 12:47

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:47

Interesting. Jesus tells us here the same that is told in John 3:16,17. Here though, he specifically speaks to the class of the people that made up the “kosmos” that do not believe. He specifically uses the same term and sentence structure that is used in John 3:17.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
John 3:17

So this would mean that if John was intending for the “kosmos” in John 3:16 to mean the elect, then we have a real issue here in understanding John 12:47, because that would speak to someone who is elect “not keeping” Jesus’ sayings.

But, to get a complete better understanding of all of this we have to go to the verse that explains this in simple terms: John 3:14,15

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
John 3:14-15

If we read John 3:16 in this context it makes a lot of sense. God provided a provision for all people to “look and be saved.” If you need to be reminded go back to Numbers 21 to get the full understanding. Moses puts this serpent up for all to see. Those believing, i.e. that look, will be saved. Those who are stiff necked and refused, died. Most will say that if Jesus died for all and all aren’t saved, then Christ failed. Did God fail if some didn’t look at the serpent? No. The person failed to recognize their provision and died in their sin of idolatry. This is the definition of the reprobate: those that don’t believe and die in their sin. Also know that if the serpent was only a provision for only those who would have looked, then Moses was a liar. He told the people in Numbers: Everyone who is bitten and looks upon the serpent shall be healed. If the serpent was only for those who would believe then Moses cannot make this remark to the people, it is an empty promise.

Again, this is a direct parallel. The serpent was for all that were bitten. If you looked, you were saved, if you didn’t look, you died. Now take this to John 3:16. Basically Jesus is telling us here: God so loved the world (all those bitten, or in this case sinned) that He gave His own begotten Son (He gave a redeemer, a greater bronze serpent, per se) that whoever believes in Him (whoever looks upon the redeemer, i.e. everyone who looks upon the serpent) shall not perish (like those whose redeemer was provided yet didn’t look upon the serpent) but have everlasting life (will be healed of their bite).

We also have the question of, “Was Christ a provision for each and every sin that I commit, or is Christ a payment for our sins in general?” Meaning: Did Christ have to die for each and every one of my lies, or did He die for the sin of lying and then apply His death to every one of our lies? The serpent clears this up. Was the serpent a provision for each and every person’s idolatry, or was the serpent a provision for the people’s collective sin of idolatry? The serpent was a provision for the nation’s sin of idolatry and then was applied to those who would look upon the provision. (penal payment)

If we read John 3:16 to mean that God so loved the elect, then we must say the same here in Numbers. God loved those elect, of the nation of Israel,and provided the serpent for those who would believe only, not for all. Numbers 21:8 could not be more clear for us:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.”
Numbers 21:8

Notice God uses the term “everyone” to connotate that the serpent was for all people, not just some. Who was the death effective for? Those who believed and looked.

So, if you think that Jesus only died for the elect, then you have to read into Numbers 21 and also say that the serpent was somehow only for those who would look and was not a provision for all, even though God Himself says that it was for “everyone who was bitten.” The same can be said of us today: Jesus died for all who have been bitten (sinned) and all who believe in Him will have eternal life.

I think a thorough study of John 3:16, Numbers 21 and John 12:47 all point to the fact that this assertation by Turretinfan comes up wanting in the face of seeing the world, the “kosmos,” that John intended was not “the elect” but actually of all mankind. Especially since we can see that John 3:16,17 and John 12:47 are both thought of in the same light, by the same author with the same sentence structure. John really nails his point by drawing on Numbers 21 so that none can be confused with his intent of “God so loved the world” that is, all mankind.

Remember that John is giving the good news of who is included in this Love of God, namely, that God so loved all mankind, that is the good news of our God! We are not denying that there is a special love for the elect, but that is not the point of this particular passage, this passage deals with the love of the Father for all his creation, so much, that He sent the “kosmos” Creator, to die for the creation, because He loved it so much.

If you would like to take a look at some other theologian’s stances on John 3:16 here are a few:

John Calvin, John Davenant, JC Ryle, R.L. Dabney

Read More......