Thursday, September 24, 2009

Calvinism, John 3:16, and an Arminian Friend

A couple of months ago, I started thinking hard about what is and is not taught in the most famous, oft-quoted verse in the Bible: John 3:16. While that series of posts outlining my conclusions still lies in the future, I wanted to share an email response that was spawned out of that discussion.

My interlocutor is a dear brother in Christ, whose friendship and brotherhood I have long treasured. (I'll call him Jerry.) Jerry kindly responded to my email concerning John 3:16, probably suspecting that what I was trying to get at had something to do with a Calvinist vs. Arminian understanding of the passage. While that wasn't what I was getting at, I thought that the exchange we had would be particularly beneficial to share.

The following is my most recent response to him. I've reproduced only select portions of his original email to (1) narrow the scope of this post, and (2) to shorten this post to a semi-reasonable length.

Enjoy.

---
Hey Man,

So again, let me tell you that it was a joy to read through what you wrote. At so many of the points you made I found myself just saying, "Amen," and rejoicing and praising God. I particularly enjoyed considering Jesus as the serpent of Numbers 21 and the Son of Man of the book of Daniel, and how you said one image depicts His bringing salvation and the other depicts His deity. Wasn't anything new, but it's always nice to have Christ presented to you by your brothers. So, hear that.

But there were also some things that you presented that I disagree with, and would love the opportunity to present what I think is the Biblical position on some of the topics you brought up. I'll start here. You said:

The world…

I know some respected theologians believes that God offers salvation only to the elect… however I believe the context points toward God loving those that accept and those that reject Him.

I actually agree with you here, too, even though I'm a Calvinist. Some folks say that "the world" refers only to the elect. Some say that "the world" just means that it's in contrast to what Nicodemus would have thought (that is, that salvation would only be offered to Israel). So proponents of that view would say that "world" is contrasted with "just Israel" (as I believe it is in 1 John 2:2). But here, I believe that Jesus is saying that God has loved (note the past tense, denoting that this 'loving' is an action that took place at a particular time) the totality of fallen humanity in a particular way: by sending His Son to die for sinners. This would be contrasted with the angels, who were not loved like that to even have a Savior presented/offered to them, but were damned without mercy (2Pet 2:4).

That the gift of Christ’s atonement has the potential to pay the sin debt of every man ever created, however with all gifts of God (Romans 6:23) it is not forced upon us. We are responsible before God to accept the gift of salvation.

Here, though, I perceive some inaccuracies in the way of speaking about the atonement. First, let me state further some agreement with what you say. Neither of us believe in universalism, that is, that everyone in history will be saved. But for a second, let's imagine that they did. I don't believe that Christ would have had to suffer any more than He did to pay for the sins of every single person. That is, I believe the atonement to be sufficient to pay for the sins of every human being ever born.

However, I do not believe that that was the design of it, simply because not everyone will be saved. More on this to follow.

I do have a question about what you said. How do you support the point that none of God's gifts are forced upon us?

Also, you say that "we are responsible to accept the gift of salvation." I have to tell you, brother, I never find that kind of language in Scripture. We are never exhorted to accept a gift. We are exhorted to
believe, and so be saved. I would say that it is more Biblical to say that we are responsible before God to believe in Christ, or to obey the Son / obey the Gospel command to believe (John 3:36; cf. 2Th 1:8, 1Pet 4:17).

That whoever shall believe in Him...

Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13 – again it implies that anyone can get saved.

I disagree here. I think that these verses simply teach that anyone who believes (or, calls on the name of the Lord, Rom 10:13) will be saved. These verses simply teach the conditions that must be met for salvation. They do not say a word about whether or not all are able to meet these conditions. I don't think that you can accurately say that the statement of the conditions of salvation implies that anyone can meet the conditions. There's a jump there that the text doesn't make.

So the question becomes: who will meet this condition of faith for salvation? The answer is actually given at the end of the verse that Paul quotes in Romans 10:13. He's quoting Joel 2:32, but only the first half. Here's the whole verse: "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls."

The ones who call on the Lord's name for deliverance, the ones who escape unto salvation, the survivors are those
whom the Lord calls. The ones who call on Him are only the ones that He first calls. The reason is because, apart from being given new life, eyes to see, and ears to hear, everyone without exception will remain under God's wrath (John 3:36), in their spiritual death (Eph 2:1-3), in their blindness (John 3:3), in their deafness (John 8:43, 47). It's important to see that John says that God's wrath remains on the unbeliever / the disobedient, because it means that it was already there by default. We were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3).

So unless something happens to us outside of ourselves, we will never believe, we will never obey, we will never choose God. Indeed, the mind set on the flesh is
hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Rom 8:7).

And so in John 3:16, salvation by faith alone is offered to every single person in the world. That is love. It is the love of the offer of life. The great tragedy is that no one wants it, and everyone prefers to die in their sins. Our wills are too enslaved to our sin (John 8:34; Rom 6:6, 16-20) and hostile to God (Rom 8:7) to want anything else.

So, in what the Bible calls
great love (Eph 2:4), which is a love greater than the general love of John 3:16, God elects, or chooses, a people for Himself (Eph 1:4-5; Titus 2:14), and makes them alive (Eph 2:5), even when they were dead and wanted nothing to do with Him. According to His great mercy (a mercy greater than the mercy of John 3:16), He caused us to be born again (1Pet 1:3). In the exercise of His will, He brought us forth by the word of truth (James 1:18). Indeed, those who received Jesus, who believed in His name, they were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).

The love of John 3:16 is a wonderful love. But it is not the greatest love that the Bible speaks about. I say that because it is a kind of love that can still let us go to hell. I can be loved by the love in John 3:16 and still die in my sins. But I cannot be loved by the
great love in Ephesians 2:4 and still die in my sins. No, by that love I have been made alive! By that love I have been born again! It is by His will that I was brought forth, and was given to His Son (John 10:29), and no one can snatch me out of the hand of the Son (John 10:28) or out of the hand of the Father (John 10:29)! Indeed, the only way we come to Jesus is if the Father draws us (John 6:44), and no one can come unless the Father grants it (John 6:65).

By
this great love, Jerry, God has overcome my hostile, enslaved will, even when I was refusing Him (Rom 1:18). By this love He has given me the grace to see the glory of Christ when I was once blind to it (John 3:3), and so having seen the beauty and delightfulness of that glory, I could never choose anything but Him. That's what I mean by what folks call irresistible grace; not that people never resist Jesus / the Holy Spirit, but that in this great love with this grace He overcomes my resistance, and shows me something irresistible: the glory of God in the face of Christ (2Cor 4:6)!

So I believe that the Bible presents that it is incorrect to talk about the atonement as if it
only made salvation possible. If that's the case, Jesus' death didn't actually atone for anything. It just made atonement possible. That would mean, then, as well, that what does atone is the sinner's choice. The difference between the believer and the non-believer is not God's grace, but that the believer chose to 'activate' the atonement and the non-believer didn't. I think that's foreign to Scripture, and thus a dangerous position to hold.

I think the Scripture presents Jesus' atonement as having
actually atoned, having actually purchased redemption for a people that God would call to Himself, and not for others.

  • In John 10:11, Jesus says He lays down His life for the sheep. He does not lay down His life for the goats.
  • In Acts 20:28, Paul says that God (Jesus) purchased the Church with His own blood. He did not purchase the whole world.
  • In Ephesians 5:25ff, Paul talks about Christ loving the Church by giving Himself up for her. He talks about sanctifying her and washing her so that He might present her to Himself. This is a particular people.
  • In Titus 2:14, Paul says that Jesus gave Himself to purify for Himself a people for His own possession. This is a particular people.
  • That's confirmed when this same phrase is used in 1Pet 2:9: That we are a people for God's own possession. There, that particularity is even connected to His sovereign choice, or a election, in that He calls us a chosen race.
  • In John 17:9 in the High Priestly Prayer, Jesus declares to the Father that He's praying for His people, and not the world. And the reasoning He Himself uses for doing this is because the Father gave only His people to Jesus, and not the whole world.
Now, it's important to remember what I said at the beginning of this email (so hard, I know, because of the length!). I do believe God loves the world by sending Christ. And I do believe that Jesus' death brought some good things to all people (i.e., common grace, the influence of God's people in their lives). This is what 1 Timothy 4:10 means when it says that Christ is the savior of all men, especially those who believe. That is, that all men are not damned instantly as the angels were (2Pet 2:4; Jude 6) and that they enjoy the common goodnesses that the Father sends (Matt 5:45) means that the death of Christ purchased some good things for them. But Christ saved "those who believe" especially, meaning that He saved them to the uttermost (Heb 7:25, KJV), in that He paid for their sins and actually redeemed them.

Christ could not have paid for the sins of everyone ever. If He did, all would be saved. But the Bible clearly teaches this isn't the case. You couldn't have Jesus paying for the sins of non-elect Jim, fully propitiating the Father's wrath against Jim's sin, and then because Jim doesn't believe have him be punished for eternity, under the Father's wrath. For those for whom the wrath of God has been propitiated (the elect), there is no wrath of God left (Rom 8:1). By definition, Christ has
satisfied, or fully extinguished the wrath of God towards those for whom He died. So if Christ paid the penalty for the sins of every single person everywhere, no one would be in hell unless Christ's sacrifice was not acceptable to the Father. But of course we know and believe that it was (Hebrews 9-10).

Alright... that's about enough, wouldn't you say? I welcome your response, even if it's in pieces! I hope that I've presented to you to the Word of God. It's out of a great desire for you to know Christ as He's revealed Himself, so that you can enjoy Him for all that He is in all His wonderful contours, and so that He can get the glory for being rightly seen and worshiped. I commend this teaching to you in love. I pray that it's a benefit to you, brother.

16 comments:

Adam Omelianchuk said...

You say:

"I believe that the Bible presents that it is incorrect to talk about the atonement as if it only made salvation possible. If that's the case, Jesus' death didn't actually atone for anything. It just made atonement possible. That would mean, then, as well, that what does atone is the sinner's choice."

And,

"Christ could not have paid for the sins of everyone ever. If He did, all would be saved."

This presupposes that faith comes through whether God intended for Jesus to die for specific persons. Faith is "purchased" for the believer on the cross and then implanted in the believer. But is this really taught in Scripture?

The argument you present might get us to conversion, but why could it not be extended further to sanctification? Why aren't we completely pure from sin? We can, and often do, resist God in our daily living after conversion. Does Christ, then, purchase for us a faith that falters at times and succeeds at others? That does not seem compatible with the completenes of his magnificent work on the cross ("it is finished").

This "in between" faith and unbelief in sanctification presents a lot of problems for the believer, because it undercuts his her assurance that Christ ACTUALLY did die for her. She might wonder in a time of doubt or discouragment if she really has the benefits of Christ's atonement. But that is incompatible with Scripture. 1 John 2:2 assures us that Christ died for the whole world, and that he and his work is the proper object of our faith.

Moreover, it seems that there is biblical evidence for those who have been "bought" by Christ to deviate from him and fall away by their own depravity (2 Peter 2:1-2)

I just don't see how either the atonement is limited in the sense you speak of and how it effects all that you claim. All we should say is that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and not claim anything further (like it being bound up in a contractual agreement on the cross). As far as I can tell, John 3:16 is the word of God and we don't have to struggle with wondering if we fall into the "general love" or "greater love" of God.

Mike Riccardi said...

Adam, thanks for commenting.

This presupposes that faith comes through whether God intended for Jesus to die for specific persons.

I believe that Scripture accords with that "presupposition." That's what that list of bullet points discussing various passages addresses towards the end of the post. In accordance with the eternal plan of salvation, Christ died for a specific people made up of specific persons.

I'm not sure I understand your point about extending to sanctification. I don't get the link. Maybe you could clarify.

This "in between" faith and unbelief in sanctification presents a lot of problems for the believer, because it undercuts his her assurance that Christ ACTUALLY did die for her. She might wonder in a time of doubt or discouragment if she really has the benefits of Christ's atonement.

Again, I'm not sure how this connects, so I can't really comment on whether or not Calvinism is guilty of this. But what I can say is that the Arminian presents this very problem you bring up. The only difference is that the believer -- in a time of discouragement or doubt -- has to wonder if his faith is truly genuine. He has to wonder if his faith ACTUALLY activated the atonement for his sins. So even if this was a valid criticism of my position -- which, again, I'm not sure it is -- your position is vulnerable to the same criticism.

1 John 2:2 assures us that Christ died for the whole world, and that he and his work is the proper object of our faith.

I'm sure you this already, but the Calvinist's position on 1 John 2:2 -- what I believe to be the Biblical position -- is that "whole world" does not mean "every single individual who ever lived," but rather, "individuals throughout the whole world." Note the parallels between this passage and John 11, in which it's clear that "not for the nation only" parallels "not ours only" and indicates "not just for Jews, but also for persons of all nations."

Mike Riccardi said...

In regards to 2 Peter 2, there are some great, simple responses (see also a discussion on 2Pet 2 in this broader discussion, as well as the MacArthur NT Commentary on 2 Peter), and other longer, more complex ones, that are better responses than I'd be able to give. The short response is that "bought" does not refer to propitiation. In Greek, the word "Lord" in 2Pet 2:1 is despotes not kurios. The latter is the word that refers to Jesus as Lord; the prior refers to God the Father as the Sovereign over all people. Again, the short answer is that this passage does not speak about propitiation at all, considering that it is the Son's work to propitiate the Father's wrath, not the Father's work Himself. If this were talking about Jesus propitiating the wrath of the Father on all men, Peter would have used kurios and not despotes.

All we should say is that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and not claim anything further (like it being bound up in a contractual agreement on the cross).

I disagree. We could say that, and we would mean entirely different things by it. That's confusion, not precision. We must not only read Scripture, but explain it, apply it, and exhort others to obey it. Asking, "But what do we mean by Romans 10:17?" is the only way to attain the true unity that we're called to maintain among us (Phil 1-2).

As far as I can tell, John 3:16 is the word of God...

And I have nowhere claimed otherwise. And you know that. This part of your comment is out of place.

...and we don't have to struggle with wondering if we fall into the "general love" or "greater love" of God.

I would never counsel someone to struggle with wondering about which category we're in. I would declare to them the actual Good News for sinners; namely, that if they would repent and believe they would be saved. This discussion has taken part between believers discussing the nature of God and salvation. It's not a how-to on evangelism.

But the reality is that there are these two categories. John 3:16 teaches that God exercised a universal act of love by sending His Son to die for those who would believe in Him. And yet, I can be loved that way and still go to hell. But Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 1 talk about great love and great mercy that is the saving love of God.

Adam Omelianchuk said...

Mike, I am not going to go into a lengthy back and forth, but I did just want to make it clear that I did not mean to imply that you thought John 3:16 was not part of the word of God. I was merely talking about how I perceive it to be a straightforward declaration about God's love towards humanity and how it inspires faith in what brings salvation. I'm not sure how that works out in your view. As you say, "I can be loved that way and still go to hell." I mean how can you know God really loves you so much to save you if you can't get that from John 3:16?

Mike Riccardi said...

I mean how can you know God really loves you so much to save you if you can't get that from John 3:16?

I don't know what that question means. I'm not sure what it's trying to get at.

I wouldn't say, "God loves me so much to save me." That's not what John 3:16 says. I would say God's love for the world is the sending of His Son. "God so (Gk. outws) loved the world," i.e., God thus or in this way loved the totality of fallen humanity: He sent His Son.

And I would say God's love for me, particularly, is demonstrated by His actually making me alive while I was dead (Eph 2:1-5).

Adam Omelianchuk said...

How can you say John 3:16 does not say, "God loves me so much to save me"? That simply does not do justice to the text. It can't just mean that God loves the world merely because he "sent" his son. Why he could have sent him in the glory of judgment and put everyone to the sword! No, he gave his Son to save the world, and that means he intends to bring grace to anyone who will have it. It's as personal as it is universal, and it cannot be read to merely say God loved the world in an abstract or general way just because he became incarnate. That is understating the text.

Here's what the IVP commentary edited by Carson (et all) says about the verse:

"The statement in v 16 concisely expresses three truths—the universal character of God’s love, its sacrificial nature and its eternal purpose. It is no wonder it has been described as ‘the gospel in a nutshell’. Since the verb used (have) is in the present tense this shows that eternal life is intended to be a present possession. This statement would have been challenging for Jewish hearers who were used to thinking of God as loving only Israel, but it is in line with the idea of universal love found elsewhere in the NT. The word world is used with the usual meaning in this gospel of a place in need of God’s saving grace. This explains why Jesus came to save, not to condemn (17).

(Carson, D. A. New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition. Rev. Ed. of: The New Bible Commentary. 3rd Ed. / Edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.)

Adam Omelianchuk said...

Here's what Kostenberger says in his BECNT:

"What is the reason that God made eternal life available? It is love for the world. This much-loved verse is the only place in John where God the Father is said to love the world (cf 1 John 4:9-10). The OT makes abundantly clear that God loves all that he has made, especially his people (eg Ex 34:6-7; Deut 7:7-8; Hos 11:1-4; 8-11). In these last days, God has demonstrated his love for the world through the gift of his one-of-a-kind Son. Significantly, God's love extends not merely to Israel, but to 'the world,' that is sinful humanity. Just as God's love encompasses the entire world, so Jesus made atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

"In a major escalation from the giving of the law (cf John 1:17), God gave his 'one-of-a-kind Son.' While the Greek introductory construction houtos gar stresses the intensity of God's love, the result clause, speaking of the giving of God's one-of-a-kind Son, stresses the greatness of that gift. The next verse says God "sent" his Son (3:17); here, the term used is "gave." This draws attention to the sacrifice involved for God the Father in sending his Son to save the world. Surely, to see his son die in such a cruel fashion would break any father's heart--much more so that of our heavenly Father, In a similar OT passage, Abraham was asked to give his one-of-a-kind son Isaac (Gen 22). Unlike Jesus, however, Isaac was not offered up, but spared when God provided a substitute.

The stark alternatives in the following purpose clause are either to perish or to obtain eternal life. The term perish occurs several times in this Gospel. In the present context, "perish" is the antithesis of "have eternal life." Already in the OT, blessings for obedience correspond to curses for disobedience (Deut 28-30). In John, likewise, there is no middle ground: believing in the Son (resulting in eternal life) or refusing to believe (resulting in destruction) are the only options."

It is clear that the verse means that God has so loved us that he sacrificed his only Son so that we might have eternal life--that is, be "made alive"--and not perish.

Adam Omelianchuk said...

Oh, and I am sorry for saying I wasn't going to get into a lengthy back and forth with you... obviously, I couldn't restrain myself!

Mike Riccardi said...

How can you say John 3:16 does not say, "God loves me so much to save me"? That simply does not do justice to the text. It can't just mean that God loves the world merely because he "sent" his son.

I can say that because the text doesn't say that. You don't get to make the call on what does justice to the text by quoting scholars and not actually dealing with the text itself. (By the way, Carson's quote supports my view entirely. Kostenberger's exegesis mistakes Action-result for Action-manner, and so he arrives at the wrong conclusion. What's interesting for you, there, though, is that he argued against your interpretation of 1John 2:2.)

What we're talking about here is the topic that I intend to post in further posts, mentioned at the top of this original post, so I'm only going to say a few more things about it.

Look at the text. It does not say that God loves the world, but that He loved (past tense, aorist) the world. This means that John 3:16 is intending to communicate something about an act of love that happened in the past, not an ongoing positive disposition.

And it says that God "so" loved the world. This word is ambiguous because it represents two concepts in English. One is "so much" and the other is "thus." The word in Greek that's translated "so" is the word outws, which is used 250 times in the NT. In about 247 of those usages, the meaning is unmistakably "thus" or "in this way." In fact, it's even translated that way in many of the passages. In 3 cases it's not as clear, but IMO makes most sense understood as "thus."

So this is what the word means. The verse is not, "God loved us so much that He gave His Son for us." It's just not what it says. (I'll show in a minute why that's also at odds with a sound theology, but even before theology enters the pictures, it's just not what the text says.) Instead, it reads like this: "For God in this way loved the world: that He gave His Son." The cross is not a display of what we're worth to God. It's a display of what Christ is worth to us.

So on the basis of the text itself, it doesn't mean what you're trying to make it say.

Mike Riccardi said...

But if we examine the implications of what you're saying, we also see that it's inconsistent with God's character. Let's assume for a second that the text didn't say what it says (I speak as if insane). What would it mean that God loved the world so much that something in the world moved Him to give up His Son for the world?

Well, the first thing it would mean would be that we're talking no longer about an "act" of love, but an affection that motivated an act of love. So we'd have God considering the corrupt, fallen, sinful, God-hating, self-worshiping totality of humanity, and -- not on the basis of Christ's work, because that hasn't happened yet -- looking at them and finding some kind of delight in them... some kind of delight that stirs His affections, and fills Him up in such a way that this delight overflows into (or motivates) an act of love.

Quite simply, this would be idolatry. God would be unjust to consider the depraved world and find any sort of positive affection within Himself. Because the depraved human world is not delightful. And to find -- or treat as -- delightful that which is in reality not delightful is precisely idolatry. It is honoring something that isn't worthy of honor. It's esteeming something that isn't worthy of esteem.

We did not motivate the cross. God Himself -- His love for Himself, and His name, and His glory -- motivated the cross. Christ gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession (Tit 2:14) to proclaim His excellencies (1Pet 2:9, to be unto Him a name and, praise, and glory (Jer 13:11).

Enough about that, then, for now.

It's as personal as it is universal, and it cannot be read to merely say God loved the world in an abstract or general way just because he became incarnate. That is understating the text.

I didn't say just because He became incarnate. I'm wondering if you read the entire original post, where I said, "And so in John 3:16, salvation by faith alone is offered to every single person in the world. That is love. It is the love of the offer of life." It is not just His incarnation but the sincere offer of life to anyone that will have it, that Scripture says is the general love of John 3:16.

No, he gave his Son to save the world...

So if He gave His Son to save the world, did He fail?

...and that means he intends to bring grace to anyone who will have it.

I think you're flat out wrong here. He intends give grace to a people that violently and hostilely won't have it. Life is offered, but the great tragedy is that no one wants it, and everyone prefers to die in their sins. Our wills are too enslaved to our sin (John 8:34; Rom 6:6, 16-20) and hostile to God (Rom 8:7) to want anything else.

Great love, though, is that He overcomes that will. He actually gives grace that saves; He does not just offer grace that may or may not save.

It is clear that the verse means that God has so loved us that he sacrificed his only Son so that we might have eternal life--that is, be "made alive"--and not perish.

Now, on the face of this, I agree completely. But I know that you mean something different than this. Here's a very similar way to write that while unmistakably conveying the Biblical message:

It is clear that the verse means that God has [thus] loved us: that he sacrificed his only Son so that we might have eternal life--that is, be "made alive"--and not perish.

Adam Omelianchuk said...

You made a number of puzzling claims in your last two comments that left me baffled.

How exactly is Kostenberger's interpretation of 1 John 2:2 at odds with mine?

What is this distinction between "action-result" and "action-manner" you speak of? What "results" are you talking about? I am talking about how people are loved--God desires to save everyone, something that seems clearly implied by the text, and something you seem to deny.

How is the interpretation of "so" relevant to your argument? Your textual argument for "In this manner" still demonstrates the degree of "so much" and the intensity of which is demonstrated by the sacrifice of his son--for the world no less! It's a distinction without difference.

Why go into a foray about God's motives for saving people? It is almost as if you see his love for us as some sort of problem to be solved by theodicy. Nor has it ever been clear to me how God is an idolater if he loves something. Is God the kind of being who is a worshiper? I never claimed that we move him to his mercy. What are you talking about?

Mike Riccardi said...

Ok, last comments...

How exactly is Kostenberger's interpretation of 1 John 2:2 at odds with mine?

As I understand him, his point is that "whole world" means "not just Israel" and does not mean "every single individual ever born."

What is this distinction between "action-result" and "action-manner" you speak of? What "results" are you talking about?

Sorry. I thought this was more clear by his language. "God loved" is the action. "that He gave" is either the result of that love (Action-result) or the manner in which God loved (Action-manner). I think the text clearly teaches Action-manner, and not Action-result, by the way the word outws is used.

I am talking about how people are loved--God desires to save everyone,

No, that's not how people are loved. People are loved by God sending His Son that they might be rescued from their just damnation.

God desires to save everyone, something that seems clearly implied by the text, and something you seem to deny.

That is not clearly implied by the text. I do deny that (in the sense we've been speaking about). The text says that God gave His Son so that the believing ones might have life and not perish.

How is the interpretation of "so" relevant to your argument? Your textual argument for "In this manner" still demonstrates the degree of "so much" and the intensity of which is demonstrated the sacrifice of his son--for the world no less! It's a distinction without difference.

The "so" argument only makes sense if you understand it as an either-or; either "thus" or "so much." You can't mean both when you use the word "thus."

Perhaps this will be helpful. I sense a conflation between love as an action and love as an affection. Undoubtedly both are aspects of love, but because of the past tense along with the "in this way" it only makes sense to understand "God loved" as referring to a specific action. It seems you want to read it as if it was an affection that motivated an action. I'm saying it's the action itself.

Why go into a foray about God's motives for saving people? It is almost as if you see his love for us as some sort of problem to be solved by theodicy.

Because to say that God loved us so much that He sent Jesus is to make a statement about what motivates God to this act of love.

Nor has it ever been clear to me how God is an idolater if he loves something.

Righteousness is doing right. Doing right in the case of honoring, worshiping, esteeming, regarding, etc. means honoring what's right to be honored, worshiping what's right to be worshiped, etc. If God ever doesn't do all those things perfectly, He'd be sinning. Specifically, He'd commit the sin of idolatry, which is, in short, delighting in something that is not in reality delightful.

Is God the kind of being who is a worshiper?

Of course. In God's dealings with the universe He created, His actions reveal intentions. In all His actions, His intentions are clear: to glorify Himself to the utmost, to show Himself big and magnified and exalted and lifted up. God worships that which is most worthy of worship: Himself. This is the very basis of why it's righteous for us to worship Him.

I never claimed that we move him to his mercy.

Think about it. If He loved us so much that He sent Christ, we're saying that He found in us something that was delightful, such that that moved Him to demonstrate His love for us.

I think that's as clear as I can get. I'm sorry if I'm not more clear. If you have more clarifying questions I'd be happy to answer, but I'm wondering now about the benefit of continuing. In any case, thanks for reading and commenting.

Adam Omelianchuk said...

Thanks for taking the time to post Mike. I think we could go back and forth for days, but I too wonder if that would be beneficial. I’ll let your last comment be the last word (for now). I am sure we will cross swords again in the future!

Take care.

Richard Coords said...

Hello Mike,

I'd like to add one thought.

Romans 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?"

Are you suggesting that God gave the world His Son, but withholds something even better, namely, the grace to receive the gift of His gift? Isn't that placing the value of grace above the value of Christ?

Richard Coords said...

typo, here's the correction:

Are you suggesting that God gave the world His Son, but withholds something even better, namely, the grace to receive the gift of His Son? Isn't that placing the value of grace above the value of Christ?

Mike Riccardi said...

Sorry, I'm going to try to do a better job of responding, here.

Richard,

No.

Your position assumes that "for us all" in Romans 8:32 means everyone who ever lived (non-elect included).

But the context of Romans 8:28 and following is clear that the audience of those statements is made up of believers. Paul is talking to Christians. That's evident by talking about the golden chain of salvation (those He called, He justified, He glorified, etc.). So His audience is those who are already saved.

So Paul isn't talking about God's "delivering over His Son for us all" in the sense that He sent Christ into the world (John 3:16, the general love of the offer of life). Paul's talking about God's delivering His Son over to death in a propitiatory, atoning, saving sense.

But God doesn't do that for the entire world. He only does that for the elect, for His people (cf. original post).

"Us all," then, would refer to the elect. That's unmistakable in the very next verse (v. 33): "Who will bring a charge against God's elect?"

So no, I'm not saying that grace is valued above Christ. The offer is given to all. Christ is not given to all. Christ is given to those that the Father has given Him (cf. John 17:9-10).

Thanks for commenting.