Search

You searched for 'Revelation'

I've found 36 results!

Simon Wartanian | 15,642 views | 11,271 words | 0:59:55 hours | 15 May 2016 15:27

Hebrews 6 Apostasy Perseverance Of The Saints Reformed Theology Calvinism Falling Away From Grace

...venly gift in truth or eternally. They have tasted it, but after a time rejected the heavenly gift.

Arthur W. Pink observes the following on the meaning of “taste”:

Second, they had “tasted” of the heavenly gift. To “taste” is to have a personal experience of, in contrast from mere report. “Tasting does not include eating, much less digesting and turning into nourishment what is so tasted; for its nature being only thereby discerned it may be refused, yea, though we like its relish and savor, on some other consideration. The persons here described, then, are those who have to a certain degree understood and relished the Revelation of mercy; like the stony-ground hearers they have received the Word with a transcient joy” (John Owen). The “tasting” is in contrast from the “eating” of John 6:50-56.^[6]

Dr. Grudem observes the following in a footnote about the word “taste”:

The word tasted is also used in Heb. 2:9 to say that Jesus “tasted death,” indicating that he came to know it by experience (but “tasted” is an apt word because he did not remain dead). The same could be true of those who had some experience of heavenly gifts, as can be true even of unbelievers (cf. Matt. 7:22; 1 Cor. 7:14; 2 Peter 2:20–22). In Heb. 6:4–5 these people’s experience of the Holy Spirit’s power and of the Word of God was of course a genuine experience (just as Jesus genuinely died), but that by itself does not show that the people had an experience of regeneration.^[7]

What is the heavenly gift? Commentators and preachers are divided on this one although the majority think that it either refers to the Lord Christ (e.g. Gill, Com. Cri. & Expl., Steve J. Cole, ) or the Holy Spirit (e.g. Owen, Pink, Henry, Grudem, Piper). Both have good reasons to think so although as Pink observes, there is not a great difference since ‘the difference is without a distinction, for the Spirit is here to glorify Christ, as He came from the Father by Christ as His ascension “Gift” to His people.’^[6]

John 4:10 seems to be a strong verse to see “the gift of God” which came down from heaven to be the Lord Jesus Himself. Note that the passage does not speak of a gift of God, but the gift of God. See also John 3:16; Romans 6:23. This description would then imply that these apostates had some kind of experience with the Lord Jesus, without being regenerated which is not impossible. Being within the congregation of His called-out-ones they would have certainly known the Lord Jesus through experience in some way. These are not people who have come to church one day, “accepted” Jesus and then went into the world. Rather, these people were steeped into Christ’s religion and then apostatized. They had seen Christianity confirmed in various ways before their eyes and yet still choose to abandon their profession and reject the Christian faith and its founder, Christ the Lord.

For the Holy Spirit being the gift of God, Acts 2:38 is primary where the Holy Spirit is said to be the gift given by God to those who repent. He is heavenly, because He comes from heaven – He comes from God and is God. John Owen humbly defends this view:

It is, as many judge, the person of Christ himself in that place which is intended. But the context makes plain that it is the Holy Ghost; for he is the “living water” which the Lord Jesus promiseth in that place to bestow. And so far as I can observe, δωρεά, “the gift,” with respect unto God, as denoting the thing given, is nowhere used but only t...

John Owen's Case For Particular Atonement

Simon Wartanian | 11,406 views | 15,628 words | 1:22:53 hours | 21 March 2017 23:01

John Owen Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Particular Atonement Calvinism Five Point Calvinism Arminianism

...to the indefinite designation, world, through the death of His Son. This reconciliation consists of the non-imputation of sins. Well, if this is true, then the logical conclusion is that God is reconciled to us and whoever are designated with the word "world”. The usual non-Calvinistic interpretation of the “world” as all humanity will not do here. The world is limited by the previous reference to “us”, namely, the believers who are actually reconciled to God. The “world” here is a reference to believers everywhere in the world, much like how the redeemed are described in Revelation 5:9. But the main point to be taken from this passage is that this reconciliation is directly connected to the non-imputation of trespasses. But, if we take the interpretation of “world” as everyone without exception, then we have a huge problem, namely, that God will, in fact, impute sin to the wicked on the day of wrath. Therefore, this means that He has not been reconciled to them, for to be reconciled means to have fellowship and friendship with God, and according to the passage at hand, to have the non-imputation of sins. But this is in fact not the case nor will it be for everyone without exception.

If the opposing position will attack us on the point that even the elect do not enjoy this reconciliation immediately, although it was purchased at the cross, then we reply: It is true, but everyone for whom this reconciliation was made, will, in fact, enjoy this reconciliation with God. In fact, the means of enjoying this reconciliation is provided for by God through the work of His Son, namely, our faith, which is a gift. But this is not the case with the non-Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement and reconciliation. For the non-Calvinists claim that Christ died for everyone without exception and tried (?) to reconcile everyone without exception to God, yet the majority of humanity either does not know of this reconciliation or rejects it. The Calvinist doesn't run into the trouble of a reconciliation that does not reconcile, or an atonement that does not save, but needs our deciding choice.

To put it at length in the words of Dr. Owen:

Now, how this reconciliation can possibly be reconciled with universal redemption, I am no way able to discern; for if reconciliation be the proper effect of the death of Christ, as is confessed by all, then if he died for all, I ask how cometh it to pass, — First, That God is not reconciled to all? as he is not, for his wrath abideth on some, John 3:36, and reconciliation is the aversion of wrath. Secondly, That all are not reconciled to God? as they are not, for “by nature all are the children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3; and some all their lives do nothing but “treasure up wrath against the day of wrath,” Rom. 2:5. Thirdly, How, then, can it be that reconciliation should be wrought between God and all men, and yet neither God reconciled to all nor all reconciled to God? Fourthly, If God be reconciled to all, when doth he begin to be unreconciled towards them that perish? by what alteration is it? in his will or nature? Fifthly, If all be reconciled by the death of Christ, when do they begin to be unreconciled who perish, being born children of wrath? Sixthly, Seeing that reconciliation on the part of God consists in the turning away of his wrath and not imputing of iniquity, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, which is justification, rendering us blessed, Rom. 4:6–8, why, if God be reconciled to all, are not all justified and made...

1 Timothy 2:4 & Titus 2:11, 'desires all people to be saved'

Simon Wartanian | 14,770 views | 2,692 words | 0:14:11 hours | 07 September 2014 16:04

Limited Atonement Timothy 2:4 Titus 2:11 Universalism Intercession The Cross ESV Study Bible MacArthur Study Bible Reformation Study Bible NLT Study Bible

...who are in high position.” So what Paul is saying to Timothy is this: Timothy, do not only pray for your brethren, who are those that are despised in the world, who are persecuted, who are hated, but don’t forget Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies. So, Timothy also pray for your persecutors that they may come to the knowledge of God, who desires to save all kinds of people, so that we may lead a peaceful life. Then it follows logically that if we accept the contextual meaning of “all” to mean “all kinds of” then the “all” in verse 6 also means that Jesus was a ransom for all kinds of people. Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus with His blood has ransomed a people for God from every tribe, language, people and nation; thus, Jesus has ransomed every kind of people, kings and servants, free and slaves, male and female, Jew and Gentile. Please note in Revelation 5:9, it says that our Glorious Lord ransomed with his blood a people for God from every tribe, tongue, people and nation, a specific people, not the tribes, tongues, peoples and nations.

And let us not forget the beauty of verse 5 where we are told that Jesus is the only mediator between men and God. A mediator is “one that mediates, especially one that reconciles differences between disputants.”[2] Through Christ we have been reconciled to God (Col 1:21-22) and He is standing before the Father, as the Son interceding for us (Rom 8:26, 34; Heb 7:25), He is interceding for a specific people, not every single individual in the world. This also brings the picture of Christ as High Priest, as seen in the book of Hebrews, He is the one pleading for His sheep to the Father.

Let’s see what the Word of God says of the Lord’s intercessory work. For whom does Christ intercede?

Heb 7:23-27 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Heb 9:24-28 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

In the book of Hebrews we see Christ’s High Priestly work. We see also that Christ intercessory work is rooted in His cross-work. He saves to the uttermost those who draw near to God, but then the question arises: Who draws near to God? The answer from Jesus’ lips is recorded in John 6:44 – No one c...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 4: Of Creation - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 17,503 views | 6,589 words | 0:34:34 hours | 04 March 2015 21:12

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 4 Creation Young Earth Creationism Image Of God Imago Dei

... ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 11: Of Justification - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 22,778 views | 23,400 words | 2:03:21 hours | 04 March 2015 21:54

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 11 Chapter Eleven Justification Justification By Faith Alone Sola Fide Sola Gratia Imputed Righteousness Infused Righteousness Roman Catholicism Protestantism

...ly for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

It is faith in the Messiah that is counted by God as if it was our righteousness (see below for more on this point). Our faith is in Christ. Under the Old Testament, it was in the promises of God and the types and shadows as they did not have the complete Revelation of God yet. But Paul says that even David speaks of justification by faith alone. It is faith which is the lone instrument of this. God counts our belief, trust, confidence, and faith in Him as our righteousness just like He did for Abraham (Gen. 15:6). This was as Paul, again and again, says—apart from works. Works were not into consideration because all of them are as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6) and no one really does anything “good” before a perfectly holy God (Rom. 3:10, 12). Even the father of the faithful, says Paul in v. 10, was justified by faith, how much more his children? But to stress his point, even more, he refers back to the Genesis 15 episode where God makes the covenant with Abraham. The circumcision part had not come yet; that was established in Genesis 17, but Genesis 15:6 says that God counted Abraham’s faith in God and trust in His promises as the means of Abraham’s right-standing before Him. God did not declare Abraham just after he was circumcised, but before he was circumcised. He was justified by faith alone apart from works.

We could go on and on, but it is needless. I believe that those verses sufficiently show that works are excluded from salvation. See CARM for more: “Are we saved by faith alone, or do we need works, too?” and “Verses Showing Justification by Faith”.

Relation Between Faith and Justification

How exactly are faith and justification connected? Are we justified because of our faith? What I specifically want to discuss here is a common mistake which the Reformed has spoken against, namely, that our faith is that which is accounted as righteousness. This case seems strong when we consider Genesis 15:6 and its citations in the New Testament (Rom. 4:3). We will consider the citation of Paul in Romans 4:3 as the starting point of our discussion. Before we do that, it is important for us to lay some terminology which is often used concerning justification.

Instrumental Cause - Protestant theologians often speak of faith being the instrumental cause of salvation. By that, they mean that faith is that by which or through which we attain justification. Faith is “thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness”. The Scriptures teach that we are:

justified by faith (Rom. 3:28, 30; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 24);
justified through faith (Rom. 3:30; Gal. 2:16);
“righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9);

Nowhere do we read that we are justified because of our faith. A small difference in language, but a huge difference theologically! As an article on Ligonier Ministries beautifully explains:

Faith alone is the instrument that we exercise to lay hold of the ground upon which the Lord’s verdict of righteousness is pronounced; faith is not the basis or ground upon which God makes His declaration.^[32]

See for more on justification by faith under the heading below.

Meritorious Cause - By meritorious cause, we mean, the ground on which we are justified and accou...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 26,034 views | 45,510 words | 3:58:30 hours | 06 March 2015 23:14

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 29 Baptism Believer's Baptism Immersion Dipping Infant Baptism Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Federalism

...Testament. The same is true for the Lord’s Supper; it is not a seal of the New Covenant, but the Holy Spirit is the seal. But we do believe that the holy ordinances do function as signs of the New Covenant.

In 1689 Federalist understanding, the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant before it was formally established in the blood of Christ. In contrast, Westminster Federalism teaches that the New Covenant is the last and final administration of the Covenant of Grace. Westminster Federalism teaches that the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. But the Covenant of Grace reaches its final administration and Revelation in the New Covenant. But we, 1689 Federalists, deny this. We believe rather that the New Covenant/Covenant of Grace was revealed in these covenants and the blessings thereof given to the elect, but not because of the covenant they found themselves in, but because they believed the promise. We believe that the Covenant of Grace, prior to the cross, existed in promise form, and not an established covenant. As John Owen said, “Believers were saved under it [the Mosaic Covenant], but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.”^[24] See more on 1689 Federalism and the case for it in chapter 7.

Signs

What do we actually mean by a sign and a seal? A sign is something visible which points to inward and spiritual realities. The rainbow was the visible sign of the Noahic Covenant, it functioned as a token (“Something serving as an indication, proof, or expression of something else”^[25]) that God will not destroy the earth by water again (Gen. 9:13-17). Circumcision functioned as a visible sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, which symbolized the need to be cleansed from sin through blood-spilling. For Abraham, it was a sign and a seal of the faith which he had prior to circumcision (Rom. 4:11). The Sabbath functioned as a visible sign of the Mosaic Covenant. It functioned as a sign that God had set His people apart (Ex. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20). There is no sign mentioned in connection with the Davidic or the New Covenant explicitly. But the throne would probably fit as a visible sign for David that he will always have someone from his posterity to sit on it and rule over Israel. As for the New Covenant, we only have two “positive and sovereign institution[s]” (28:1). I admit from the start that we have no text in the New Testament identifying baptism or the Lord’s Supper either as signs individually, or signs together of the New Covenant. But does this then imply that we have no reason to see them as signs at all? Obviously not. We see them as signs of the New Covenant when we understand what a sign or a token is.

We noted above on Colossians 2:11-12 that we do not see baptism replacing/fulfilling circumcision as the sign of the New Covenant, as it is often alleged by our paedobaptist brethren, but rather, circumcision of the foreskin has its counterpart in the circumcision of the heart. Circumcision of the foreskin was not fulfilled in water baptism, but rather in the circumcision of the heart. There is nothing said there about water baptism being fulfilled and has become the sign of the covenant, as it functioned for the Abrahamic Covenant. That was not the purpose or intention of the apostle. But we may indeed see baptism as a sign of the covenant because baptism signifies something. Our Confession says that baptism is ...

A Review of Jeffrey D. Johnson's The Fatal Flaw

Simon Wartanian | 9,578 views | 4,031 words | 0:20:42 hours | 27 November 2015 22:25

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Baptism Infant Baptism Book Review Jeffrey Johnson The Fatal Flaw

...ament, the Covenant of Grace was seen in the shadows and prophecies (See certain shadows in the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants). But under the New Testament dispensation we have a fuller Revelation of God’s purposes and the Covenant of Grace which was fully revealed in the New Covenant.

The Westminister position is summed up in the last sentence in paragraph 6 –

…There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

As Pascal Denault puts it: one covenant, two administrations.

Sign of the Covenant

Our Presbyterian brethren argue that the sign of the covenant of grace prior to the New Covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was applied to all males within the covenant. In fact, 8 days old infants were required to be circumcised.

They see the sign of the covenant being replaced from circumcision to baptism on the basis of their interpretation of Rom 4:11 and Col 2:11-12. Johnson spends quite some time on Romans 4:11.

Now let us apply the Westminster understanding of the Covenant of Grace to this. The Covenant of Grace was administered under Abraham and Moses and obviously included infants. In fact it commanded infants to bear its sign. Therefore, unless the contrary could be proven, infants are also admitted into the last administration of the Covenant of Grace – the New Covenant and should receive its sign, which they believe is baptism.

It’s understandable if the theology of the Covenant of Grace is correct.

Turn the Tables!

For those credobaptists who are not familiar with the Westminster position which is rooted in Covenant Theology, infant baptism is something they would not come up with by simply reading the Bible. Thus, they think that the case is closed by the fact that infant baptism is nowhere described or commanded in the New Testament.

But through Covenant Theology the Paedeobaptists turn the tables upon the non-covenantal Credobaptist. They teach that the covenants of God were made with the believers and their seed. This is one basic aspect of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace (from their perspective), which they assume would continue to the last administration of the Covenant of Grace, that is – the New Covenant. This is understandable. Thus, they counter the non-covenantal credobaptism with the following:

“Unless an express statue of repeal and prohibition of the former privilege can be produced, the natural conclusion is that the old rule remained in force as regards their place of infant children of the believer within the visible fellowship of faith to which their parent belongs.” (p. 28, from Douglas Bannerman)

The tables have now been turned. The non-covenantal Credobaptist demands proof for infant baptism, the covenantal Paedobaptist argues from the previous administrations of the covenant of grace and places the burden of proof in the hands of the Credobaptist.

For the non-covenantal Credobaptist to win the argument, he would have to provide a prohibition for infant baptism, or an explicit statement about the exclusion of infants from the New Covenant.

The Critique of the Westminster Position

Throughout the book Jeffery Johnson tries to demonstrate why the Westminster position is inconsistent and unbiblical. He starts by examining the analogy between baptism and circumcision (chapter 2).

Baptism is the New Circumcision?

While examining circumcision u...

A Review of Perspectives on the Doctrine of God

Simon Wartanian | 1,476 views | 2,894 words | 0:14:58 hours | 14 May 2022 21:35

Theology Proper Arminianism Calvinism Open Theism Review

...t nothing happens outside or without God’s will and those who are in hell, God wanted them to be there because of their sin and He will be glorified in their damnation. This is indeed a horrible decree, but it is nonetheless for the glory of the triune God. Either God had a purpose in their destruction and brought them into being or He did not. Dr. Olson’s answer is “People determine themselves for hell by their free choices and especially by their rejection of God’s offer of salvation (whether through the explicit preaching of the gospel or through the light of God present in every culture and in conscience)” (p. 161). There is no offer of salvation in natural Revelation, but his theology has ventured off so far based on his conception of goodness and love that he would perhaps be an inclusivist? The gospel comes to us by special divine Revelation (e.g., Rom. 10:14-17).

Another point which Dr. Olson mentions is that “God limits his power in relation to creation and especially in relation to human persons” (p. 155). One should not wander that Calvinists have often accused of Arminians of not being as God-centered as Calvinists when such statements are made. God is adjusting Himself just to make room for His creatures. God does not need to restrict Himself or His power in order for His creatures to be responsible. He also says that “For free will theses, God’s glory is not might but goodness” (p. 155). Why such a dichotomy? As if His power is contrary to His grace and mercy. This is in nowise the case.

According to Olson, libertarian free will is simply presupposed in the Bible (p. 159). It is “the Hebraic view of persons as possessing free will” (p. 159). I’m not sure if we can paint with such a broad brush. There are interesting indications about the Essenes and divine determinism. In the rest of the chapter, he goes on to substantiate more claims about libertarian free will and some tenants of Arminianism like prevenient grace. All in all, a fine but an unconvincing case for classical Arminianism.

The open theist position

The last essay is for the Open Theism view by Dr. John Sanders. Dr. Sanders is a fine and gracious gentleman who better represents the “theological determinist” side than does Dr. Olson! His is the extreme side of the debate concerning the intractability of God and His knowledge. Departing from classical orthodoxy, he claims that God is in a give-and-take relationship with His creatures and that He is changed and affected by them (p. 196). Open Theism is not new. It is found in the Socinianism which was the opponent of the Reformed. They likewise denied exhaustive divine foreknowledge and determinism. While Dr. Sanders is a gracious man, his position is heretical and heterodox in my opinion. It diverges from all conceptions of God from an orthodox Christian tradition. Both classical free will theism as well as theological determinism are represented in the Christian tradition from otherwise orthodox theologians, but not so for the main tenants of open theism.

He begins by describing the way that he came to his conclusions. He was taught that his prayers could affect God and while going to college he started reading in books that God was impassible, and he could not square these two beliefs. His theology of prayer therefore gave rise to his open theism. His conclusion ultimately was “we can actually affect God” (p. 196). Furthermore, while God is omnipotent “God restrains the full use of his power...

John 1:29, 'takes away the sin of the world'

Simon Wartanian | 9,798 views | 2,368 words | 0:12:05 hours | 13 February 2014 22:15

John 1:29 Calvinism Limited Atonement Definite Redemption Universal Atonement Whole World Lamb Of God Takes Away The Sin Of The World

...day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29 ESV)

(For a better and more recent defense see here.)

Those who advocate the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement obviously take “world” everyone who has lived or will live, all without exception. Not world in the sense of many people, not world in the sense of from every “tribe and language and people and nation” as Revelation 5:9 would put it

Here is what the ESV MacArthur Study Bible says: [1]

John 1:29 The next day. This phrase probably refers to the day after John’s response to the Jerusalem delegation. It also initiates a sequence of days (v. 43; 2:1) that culminated in the miracle at Cana (2:1–11). the Lamb of God. The use of a lamb for sacrifice was very familiar to Jews. A lamb was used as a sacrifice during Passover (Ex. 12:1–36); a lamb was led to the slaughter in the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa. 53:7); a lamb was offered in the daily sacrifices of Israel (Lev. 14:12–21; cf. Heb. 10:5–7). John the Baptist used this expression as a reference to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to atone for the sins of the world, a theme which John the apostle carries throughout his writings (John 19:36; cf. Rev. 5:1–6; 7:17; 17:14) and that appears in other NT writings (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:19). sin of the world! See note on John 1:9; cf. 3:16; 6:33, 51. In this context “world” has the connotation of humanity in general, not specifically every person. The use of the singular “sin” in conjunction with “of the world” indicates that Jesus’ sacrifice for sin potentially reaches all human beings without distinction (cf. 1 John 2:2). John makes clear, however, that its efficacious effect is only for those who receive Christ (John 1:11–12). For discussion of the relation of Christ’s death to the world, see note on 2 Cor. 5:19.

The following is said by John Gill:[2]

and saith, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world: he calls him a "lamb", either with respect to any lamb in common, for his harmlessness and innocence; for his meekness and humility; for his patience; and for his usefulness, both for food and clothing, in a spiritual sense; as well as for his being to be a sacrifice for the sins of his people: or else with respect to the lambs that were offered in sacrifice, under the legal dispensation; and that either to the passover lamb, or rather to the lambs of the daily sacrifice, that were offered morning and evening; since the account of them best agrees with what is said of this Lamb of God, who was slain in type, in the morning of the world, or from the foundation of the world; and actually in the evening of the world, or in the end of it; and who has a continued virtue to take away the sins of his people, from the beginning, to the end of the world; and their sins, both of the day and night, or which are committed every day: for as they are daily committed, there is need of the daily application of the blood and sacrifice of Christ, to remove them; or of continual looking unto him by faith, whose blood has a continual virtue, to cleanse from all sin: the Jewish doctors say {d}, that

"the morning daily sacrifice made atonement for the iniquities done in the night; and the evening sacrifice made atonement for the iniquities that were by day:''

and in various things they were typical of Christ, as that they were lambs of the first year, which may denote the weakness o...

John 3:16, 'God so loved the world'

Simon Wartanian | 8,210 views | 2,123 words | 0:11:26 hours | 25 April 2014 17:19

God Loves You Calvinism Limited Atonement Unconditional Election John Gill ESV Study Bible World

...

Does it really say that God loves every single person in the world equally or in the same way? I doubt it, seeing passages for example in the Psalms which speak about God having a hatred (5:5; 11:5), of course this is not the same sinful hatred that we humans have. Now I believe that God loves everyone, but doesn’t love everyone in a redemptive love sense. Nicodemus, being a “ruler of the Jews” knew that God loves Israel, or at least those Jews who serve God and do His commandments. They should know that because it is written that God redeemed them from Egypt because He loved them (Duet 7:7-8). What was a new Revelation for him is that God had a love for the “world.” Mostly the word ‘world’ is used in a negative sense or in reference to the Gentiles (e.g. Jn 12:19; 17:9). Thus Jesus was saying to Nicodemus that God loves even non-Israelite! The word ‘world’ is used in many senses especially in John, the context decides what the word means.

Another thing to note is the phrase “For God so loved the world.” This “so” does not indicate the measure of love, but the way, the manner of love, that’s why the alternate reading for the ESV says “This is how God loved the world.”

The next to examine is the phrase “whoever believes in him.” Which is the phrase most emphasized from the verse and also mentioned in verse 15 which I really have no problem with. Since “none seeks after God” (Rom 3:9-12), unless God draws them (Jn 6:44) and the offer of salvation is universal to every single individual who hears the Gospel (Mt 22:14). The funny thing is, in the Greek text there is no such thing as “whosoever will.” The Greek phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (pas ha pusteuon) literally translates “all the believing” or “everyone believing.” Bible-believing Christians believe that those who have repented toward God and have put their faith in Christ are saved. All the believing will definitely not perish, but those who do not believe are already condemned (verse 18)!

The interesting thing is that Jn 3:16 does support “Limited Atonement” since it says that “whoever believes in him will not perish,” and we see in verse 18 that whoever doesn’t believe is already condemned! Thus Christ couldn’t have paid their ransom and they still had to pay for their sins in Hell. It would be unjust for God to punish Christ for their sins and then punish them again in the eternal lake of fire.

Now let’s consider some commentaries.

The ESV Study Bible explains:[2]

Here is the most famous summary of the gospel in the entire Bible. For connects to v. 15 and explains what happened to make it possible that someone can “have eternal life” (v. 15), that is, through believing in Christ. God so loved the world was an astounding statement in that context because the OT and other Jewish writings had spoken only of God’s love for his people Israel. God’s love for “the world” made it possible for “whoever” (v. 15) believes in Christ, not Jews alone, to have eternal life. God’s love for the world was not mere sentiment but led to a specific action: he gave his only Son, which John elsewhere explains

...