John 3:16 Should Unite, Not Divide
. In it John quotes Jesus as saying,
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Many people today want to use this verse to prove something it does not speak to. They take the words “whoever believes” and says that means people have free will to chose God or to reject him. It means that Christ’s death atones for the whole world because it says “For God so loved the world.” On the flip side the reaction is “the world” can’t mean the world and it has to mean the world of the elect. Or it has to mean this or that. In my doctrine class on Monday, the professor did just that. He said that it has to mean Calvinism is wrong.
I want to call attention to both sides some very important issues. First, the world that God “so loved” is a world full of sinners that God has condemned. He put a curse upon that planet and the fact that Jesus could say love in the same sentence should take us aback. The word “For” at the beginning of the verse connects the statement back to 3:14-15 where Jesus references Numbers 21
and Moses lifting up the snake. There the Israelites had incurred upon themselves the wrath of God through poisonous snakes. The fact that God was faithful to those people when he didn’t have to be should astound us. God sending Jesus for any person because of his love should be the focus, not is it the world of the elect or the whole world.
The text does say “whoever believes” and it should mean that. If anyone believes upon the Lord Jesus Christ, he will be saved. Anyone who tries to tinker with that must be out of ther exegeting minds! Now note what this text does not say. It does not say “whoever believes because of free will” or “whoever believes because of God’s effectual call of sovereign grace.” It doesn’t say that. In fact this verse does not tell us how the person believes. It is only saying that if the person believes they will receive salvation and justification.
Christians should unite around this one verse. This is not a proof for any doctrine other than the sufficiency of the love, grace, and mercy of God to save all who come to him in faith. It should be the reason why all witness because of one comes, that person is saved. We need not try to turn this text on its head with a meaning that simply isn’t there. It absolutely drives me nuts when, as a calvinist, people try to take this text away from me because of my views of predestination and unconditional election and effectual call. I still believe that if you come to Jesus in faith, you will be saved. The disagreement is in the how the believing occurs.
As much fun as I have in debating calvinism v. arminiansim, I feel there is too much at stake to let such a secondary issue divide the church. In that same class, one student was saying that there was an “underground calvinist” movement. Who cares if there is a disagreement on that issue. Are those calvinists teach correct, biblically based teachings? Do their people lead holy lives? Do their congregations witness for Christ by sending or going into the mission fields of the world? The same goes with the arminian teaches as well. Do we see their congregations growing in Christ?
Let us unite in our passion to spread that love found in John 3:16
to those who will believe it. It is not so much how that we should be debating, but if they are coming. If the church isn’t preaching, they aren’t hearing. If they aren’t hearing, they aren’t believing. If they aren’t believing, they aren’t calling. If they aren’t calling, they aren’t being saved! The gospel does not change if you are calvinist or arminian. Let us unite in our common goal: “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called (Eph. 4:1
).
Cross posted at Theology for the Masses.
Related posts:
4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I did not really know how to get into contact with you so I thought maybe I will send my thoughts your way be posting my comments here. I was wondering about your approach to scritpure. I have two questions: what is your proper (name) appoarch to scropture (I would be an historical-grammatic guy)? and question 2 what downfalls does systematic theology have when you are taught this approach at school? and what postives does it have?
*my schooling intentionally bypasses this approach, because off the historic problems that happened. Not that my school did not teach this in hermuentical classes, but that my school did not teach this away of learning. casey
As far as my exegetical and hermeneutical approach, I am very much author-centered. Or as you put it, I am historical-grammatical.
One downfall to systematizing is forcing a meaning upon a text. Looking at verses for a particular doctrine can put a doctrine in a verse that isn’t there. That’s kind of my point in this post and John 3:16
. We put a how people believe in the text and its not there.
A strength is that you can form a precise doctrine based not on just one verse, but on every verse the Bible has on the subject. I’m not really into systematic theology but it is necessary. I see the benefits that it has.
If I hadn’t answered your questions I apologize. May be more thoughts when I don’t have a test on Isaiah tonight.
Sorry hank for two reasons:
1) I meant my post for Henry thomas. I was really asking him those questions. But thanks for your input.
2) I honestly did not even read your John 3:26
post. I was really just finding a way to talk to Henry Thomas.
casey
Casey, this is Henry Thomas. In high school, my nickname was Hank. At SBU, my nickname became Winkler and Wink. Sorry for the confusion.
One thing more thing on systematic theology. I do think that if it is done correctly, there really wouldn’t be a downfall. One of the main points of systematic theology, as I was taught, seeks a proper interpretation of all the texts addressing that topic so that the doctrine that emerges is based upon a correct understanding of all the texts. It also seeks to take that doctrine or those doctrines and make them applicable to today’s times and cultures. So it shouldn’t have many errors in it.