Sunday 24 February 2013

God's Love for the World

Jn 3:16
Since the atonement proceeds from the heart of a loving God, what He “gave” may be understood in two senses.  First, “God gave the Son by sending Him into the world; but second, He gave the Son on the Cross.”[1]  It is the Father’s love that the Cross displays.  The Cross was not wrung from an unwilling deity.  Morris explains that the Greek construction has the following emphasis: it is not that “God loved so as to give,” but that “God loved so that He gave.”[2]  So the love of God is not a sentimental thing but is a love that costs.  Denney speaks of God’s sin-bearing love.  Love mattered a great deal to John[3] because it mattered much to God. 
Wesley’s exposition of the most favour verse in the Bible is that “God so loved the world - That is, all men under heaven; even those that despise his love, and will for that cause finally perish.”  No restriction is discernible in Wesley’s notes on this verse.  Notwithstanding his alleged Arminianism, he claimed many times that his theology was “on the very edge of Calvinism,” or a “hair’s breadth from Calvinism.”[4]  For him, salvation was all of God’s free grace; he affirms unregenerate man’s inability in anything pertaining to his salvation, and excludes all merit from man in his salvation.  Using ‘man’ in its generic sense, he recognises no limitation of the atonement to the elect only.  Even the Schofield Reference Notes[5] equate “κosmos” with “mankind,” as does A. T. Robertson.[6]  He cites the universal aspect of God’s love for the κosmos as appearing in 2 Cor.5:19 and in Rom.5:8.
Henry states that “the offer that is made of salvation is general, that whosoever believes in him, without exception, might have benefit by him.”[7]  This Puritan adds no restriction to the intention of God in sending His Son because it was “the world” that He “so loved.”  Any exegesis that refuses to accept this is seriously flawed because it is not dealing with the text qua text.  Scholasticism, especially of the Reformed variety, does serious damage to this most powerful and best known and loved of all biblical texts, and makes it say what John never intended it to say.  DML-J’s soteriology - “His love was so great that he sent his only Son into the world.  We read: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life,’ Jn.3:16”[8] -  is quite at home in the company of men like Henry and Wesley on this point.  Or again,
“For the moment humanity comes to see and to believe that, it will realise that its only hope is the hope that is offered in this Gospel.  The gospel says, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life, Jn.3:16.’”[9]
Milne is better on this verse than he was on Jn 1:29.  Here, he writes “The all-inclusive scope of God’s love” is set out in “indiscriminate” terms, adding that it “embrac[es] every man, woman and child.”[10] The object of God’s love is the world, according to Milne, is understood in terms of its “badness,” but not as clearly in terms of its “bigness.”  He agrees that this world is fallen and is organised in rebellion against God, but refuses to concede that the term is inclusive of all mankind, thus placing him in disagreement with DML-J.  
Hendriksen also agrees that “the object of this love is the world.”[11]  The term, he says, “refers to mankind, though sin-laden, exposed to judgement, in need of salvation.”  This accurately represents the Bible’s overall view of the world.  All mankind falls into this eternally dangerous spiritual situation, and it was all mankind that was/is the object of God’s love.  Comparing this statement with those of DML-J, one is impressed with the degree of agreement that is evident on this central matter of the faith.  He preaches,
“That is the vital question.  ‘What think ye of Christ?’ Matt.22:42.  And the Holy Spirit answers that question throughout that amazing record we call the New Testament.  Here it is, in one verse.  ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life, Jn.3:16.’”[12]
Disappointingly, Hendriksen reverts to his rigid confessionalism when he expounds Jn 4:42, explaining that the world of which Jesus Christ is the Saviour “consists of elect from every nation.”[13] 
This does not reflect the exegesis of a scholar who is “captive to the Word” and to the divinely-inspired text.  No doubt at his ordination he would have consented to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments being the only infallible rule of faith and practice, but confessionalism carries with it the constant danger of elevating the confessional standards of the church above the Scripture, and can even contribute to a dishonest subscription of these standards. 
Turning to J. C. Ryle (1816-1900), we discover the same teaching and emphasis as is found in Calvin.  Ryle, whose “Expository Thoughts” on the Gospels are published by the Banner of Truth Trust,[14] states with utmost clarity that the “world” that “God so loved” “means the whole race of mankind, both saints and sinner, without any exception.”[15]  Whilst acknowledging the views of men like Hutcheson, Lampe and Gill to be different in that they all see “the world” exclusively in terms of “God’s elect out of every nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, ...”[16]  Ryle maintains that the text of Scripture must be taken in its normal meaning.  Despite his saying that “By His death He purchased pardon and complete redemption for sinners,”[17] he was not thereby implying any implicit restriction in the design of the atonement.  Ryle knew that all are sinners; he was not saying that the redemption purchased by Christ was limited to particular sinners.  It was for the world that “God so loved.” 
Nor does Ryle deny that God has a special covenant love for His saints, for he expressly says that He does.  Nor does he find any weight in the objections levelled against his theory.[18]  His famous statement, “I have long since come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system,”[19] must be kept in mind constantly.  These wise words from the saintly preacher will serve to guide us well if we give them due weight in all our deliberations.
Dr John Davenant (1572-1641), the highly respect and thorough Calvinist, demonstrates that the view of the atonement preached by DML-J was not new or novel.  As a commissioner to the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), Davenant held to the universal atonement position, and defended it against all antagonists.  In his Dissertation on the Death of Christ, which was appended originally to his substantial commentary of Pauls’ letter to the Colossians,[20] Davenant contended that “the promise of the Gospel is universal.”[21] In Christ’s death (quoting Calvin), God had “put an universal mark, both that he might invite all men promiscuously to the participation of life, and that he might leave the unbelieving without excuse.”[22]  Calvin affirms that despite there being nothing in the world to merit the love of God, “Yet he shows himself to be propitious to the whole world; since he calls all without exception to believe in Christ.”  This is Calvin’s soteriological position, as approved by Davenant, who proceeds to affirm that both he and Calvin held tenaciously to the doctrine of God which affirms His opening the eyes of the elect only, to believe in and receive Christ.
Davenant distances himself from all human reason and fancy by extracting his beliefs from the testimony of Holy Scripture.  The Scriptures teach, he states, “that the death of Christ, according to the will of God, is an universal remedy, by the Divine appointment, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind.”[23]  The Cross is the divinely provided universal remedy for the whole world.  This salvation is received if any sinner repents of his sin and trusts Christ to save him.  The “whosoever” of this verse demands an openness and availability to all who desire it.  He continues, “the intention and offering of Christ in giving himself includes all mankind, in like manner as that of the Father in sending his Son,” and refers to this verse.[24]  He further affirms, “The death of Christ, and the design of God embracing all mankind promiscuously is excellently expressed,” and refers to Jn 3:16.  In order to maintain the Bible’s own perfect theological balance, Davenant adds, “But he so loved his sheep, his children, his church, that he determined by his death effectually to derive to them faith and eternal life.”[25]
When the preaching of DML-J is consulted, you will discover an identical emphasis in his evangelistic sermons.[26]
John Owen (1616-1683) has his own exposition of this verse to offer.  He denies that “the world” is to be taken in its natural usage, but instead insists that it means the following: “the world,’ miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also, which he peculiarly loved...”[27]  His understanding limits the term “the world” to the elect.
This is not an isolated statement of the great Puritan theologian.  Later on he writes,
By the “world,” we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God’s love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven.[28]
So Dr Owen is quite explicit in his exposition of this particular term.  The “world” does not mean the “world” at all, but means ‘only’ the elect of God, and none else.  If this was what John intended, he would surely have said so, so as to avoid confusion.  Scripture’s clarity is challenged by this expository method, and evangelistic preaching thrown into disarray.  DML-J, while a great admirer of Owen, could not be further from the Puritan on this point.  What he preaches is much closer to Baxter’s soteriology.
Joseph Hall reminds us that, “The heirs of Calvin have sometimes departed from the balance of the Genevan Reformer, allowing the nerve of evangelism to be severely strained, if not cut altogether.”[29]
Turning to Calvin, we find an exposition that accords more or less with all the above except Owen and Gill, and to a lesser extent Milne and Hendriksen.  The Reformer writes, “As also it is said in John 3:16 that God so loved the world that He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him to death for our sakes.”[30]  Those for whose “sakes” God loved and “spared not His own Son” is described in universal terms - “the world.” 

Again, he writes,
And whenever our sins press hard on us, whenever Satan would drive us to despair, we must hold up this shield, that God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world.[31]  
Calvin’s authentic Gospel is therefore clearly expressed, and it is now incumbent upon those who deny this clear statement to explain in what terms God did not send His Son to redeem the world than for others to explain what the contrary meaning is.  
When DML-J’s sermons are laid alongside the expositions of other preachers and theologians, certain clear features will be discovered.  For example, when preaching on the Kingdom of God, he affirmed,

No, the message is this: God ‘hath visited and redeemed his people,’ Lk.1:68.  ‘God so loved the world’ – this world, this damned, foolish, evil world that you and I live in and of which we are all a part by nature – God so loved it, ‘that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth should not perish, but have everlasting life,’ Jn.3:16.’”[32]

Again,
“‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son’ Jn.3:16.  His concern for this world and its people was so great that ‘When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...’ Gal.4:4.  ... and pointing to that cross he says to the whole world, ‘Believe on my Son and I will forgive you all your sins.”[33] 
His was a message for all.  He had no concerns for the scholastic notion of the Saviour dying for the non-elect because he was simply preaching what God has revealed in the Gospel.  No attempt was made to squeeze it into a confessional Procrustean bed.  Not once did he call for the compliance officer of high Calvinism to make the Gospel say something the original writer had not intended it to say.  His was a broad Gospel that encompassed the whole world and all humanity.  Why did God send His Son into the world?  Let DML-J answer this vitally important question.  He states,

“He sent his only Son into the world, even to the cross to die, his body to be broken, his blood to be shed, so that ‘whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life,’” Jn. 3:16.[34] 
This Gospel offered a real and sincere salvation for “whosoever believeth.”[35]  “Here is the message of the New Testament, this is Christian salvation,” he preaches.  Implied in this is that whoever limits or restricts in any way the biblical Gospel for all, offering a salvation for will who believe, is not preaching the authentic Christian message.  There is nothing that stands in the way of any sinner being everlastingly saved; all that is required of him is faith in Christian and repentance that leads to life.  Using the outward means of grace that God has provided for His children will enable their growth in grace and in the knowledge of Christ.  There is no hope for the world apart from this message.[36]  There is no Christ but the One Who was given by the Father to redeem the world.[37]  Behind all that happened on the Cross there was and is a heart of love, a love that sent God’s Son to die on the Cross for this rebellious, insulting, rejecting and chaotic world.[38]  This was DML-J’s Gospel content, without delimitation, without it being diluted, or being made to conform to any man-made standard, however good.  His Gospel was not Arminianism, though it shared with Arminianism this feature of the Gospel universality, and the condition of faith as the means of receiving the offered salvation..  The Gospel was for the world, in DML-J’s view, because the salvation it offered was for the world.
Again, the discerning eye will see that in his soteriology DML-J was closer to Calvin than Owen or Gill, closer to Davenant and Baxter and Ryle and Hall than to those who denied that Christ died for any but the elect. 



[1]    Morris, 1972:229.
[2]    Ibid.  This nuanced point is easily missed because of its subtlety but it is worth making. 
[3]    Jn 3:16 is John’s first use of αγαπαω, a verb he uses some 36 times in this Gospel and 31 times in First
       John.
[4]    Cited in Roger E. Olson at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/01/arminian-theology-is-       evangelical-theology-long/ Accessed 27/01/13.  See also Thomas Oden’s book John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), where he quotes from Wesley’s “Minutes of 1745.”  This was where Wesley met regularly with students for specifically theological discussions.  He records in answer to Question 23: Wherein may we come to the very edge of Calvinism?  Answer: (1) In ascribing all good to the free grace of God. (2.) In denying all natural free will, and all power antecedent to grace. And (3.) In excluding all merit from man, even for what he has or does by the grace of God.” (p. 253).
[5]    1917 edition.
[6]    Robertson on Jn 3:16.
[7]    See his commentary on this verse.
[8]    DML-J selection, #198.
[9]    DML-J selection, #213.
[10]    Milne, 1993:77.
[11]    Hendriksen, 1953:140.
[12]    DML-J selection, #215.
[13]    Hendriksen, 1953:176.
[14]    The irony of this must not be missed.  The Banner of Truth Trust is very keen to publish works by Ryle, Baxter, Davenant, Edwards, Bellamy, McCheyne, DML-J, Blanchard, etc while maintaining that it is committed to the Reformed Faith.  This is important because this publisher, by its editorial decisions, is stating that the views of the men mentioned fall truly within the reformed designation.  Whether or not there are signs of theological schizophrenia is for others to ascertain.
[15]    Ryle, 1869/1987:158.
[16]    Ibid.
[17]    On p.144.
[18]    Ryle, 1869/1987:159.
[19]    Ibid.
[20]    Reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in 2005 but without the “Dissertation on the Death of Christ.”.
[21]    Davenant, 1832/2006:18.
[22]    Calvin as cited in Davenant 1832/2006:19.
[23]    Davenant, 1832/2006:24.
[24]    Davenant, 1832/2006:79.
[25]  Davenant, 1832/2006:169.
[26]  See Appendix One.
[27]    http://www.the-highway.com/Jh3.16_Owen.html.  Accessed 31st January, 2013.
[28]    Owen,  http://www.the-highway.com/Jh3.16_Owen.html.  Accessed 31st January, 2013.
[29]    Hall, http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/10/hall.pdf. .  Accessed 31st January, 2013.
[30]    Calvin, Sermons on Christ’s Passion, p.48.  Add to this, Calvin’s universalistic terms: the world’s
         Redeemer (21, 37, 39, 42, 55, 63, 93, 95, 126, 138, 242, ), the human race, all men, mankind (55,  
         74, 89, 108, 125, 151, 155f, 196, 222, 237, 265, 270), sins of the world (87, 123, 284), salvation of
          the world (125, 133, 153,).
[31]    Calvin, comment on Jn.3:16.
[32]    Selection #133.
[33]    Selection #149.
[34]    Selection #158.
[35]    Selection #162, 198.
[36]    Selection #213.
[37]    Selection #215.
[38]    Selection #218, 272, 310.

No comments: