# John 3:16 and Limited Atonement



## Quatchu (Mar 26, 2012)

I had a conversation with someone who is having a hang up with John 3:16 “For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." they feel that it seems very Arminian although Disagree i can understand the struggle. Being newer then most to the Doctrines of Grace i wanted to study how the Reformed argue against this being a proof text for Arminianism. I'am having trouble understanding.


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 26, 2012)

Was dealt with here:

The Who, How and Why of John 3:16 - SermonAudio.com


----------



## athanatos (Mar 26, 2012)

"that _whosoever_ believes"

The depraved won't will because they will not. The proclamation is a legitimate call because the statement is true for covenant breakers as well as keepers: if you believe, then you will be saved. The covenant keepers believe, the covenant breakers do not believe.

"For God so loved _the world_"
If the hang-up is on the love of the world, God does not love everyone in the same way. We are all imago dei, and as such reflect the most Holy God. Yet God has special love for his elect, whom he has chosen to be his bride. Though harlots we are, God is not; God will not love those who never repent in the same way as he loves those who are in Christ, washed by the water with the word.


----------



## Jash Comstock (Mar 26, 2012)

Quite simply, John uses the terms, "world, all people, and all" many times to refer to all people groups, not specifically all people around the world head for head. So I think a better translation would be, "For God so loved all people groups, that he gave his only begotten Son that _whosover believes in him should not perish...etc" 
The second point, is the "whoever believes" John gives us a limited atonement argument within this very verse, because he affirms the fact that only those who believe will go to heaven. Of course, even Arminians believe this, but we can argue that God loves all people groups, and gave his Son as a substitution for a specific group of people. Who, you may ask? "whoever believes" According to John 6:44, only those whom the Father draws, namely, the Elect that he has already predestined._


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 27, 2012)

It would help if translators would render the verse correctly. It should be translated something like this;"God loved the world in this way: that he gave His Only unique Son that all who would believe in him would not perish but have eternal life."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 27, 2012)

athanatos said:


> "For God so loved _the world_"
> If the hang-up is on the love of the world, God does not love everyone in the same way. We are all imago dei, and as such reflect the most Holy God. Yet God has special love for his elect, whom he has chosen to be his bride. Though harlots we are, God is not; God will not love those who never repent in the same way as he loves those who are in Christ, washed by the water with the word.



I totally agree. God loves the reprobate as His image bearers (not because of their truthful bearing of His image, in which they've miserably failed, but because of their inherent/intrinsic worth as God's image bearers), yet God loves them not as His people (they are the synagogue of Satan) or as His children (they are bastards and of their father the Devil).

Francis Turretin does a great job distinguishing God's goodness, love, grace and mercy (the following is from his Institutes of Elenctic Theology):

TWENTIETH QUESTION: THE GOODNESS, LOVE, GRACE AND MERCY OF GOD
How do they differ from each other?

I. As vindictive justice (treated of in the preceding question) and hatred, wrath and severity (pertaining to it) are concerned with the infliction of physical evil or of punishment, so goodness and the qualities contained under it (viz., love, grace and mercy) are occupied with the communication of good, but diversely.

II. The goodness of God is that by which he is conceived not only absolutely and in himself as supremely good and perfect (as it were) and the only good (autoagathon, Mk 10:18) because he is such originally, perfectly and immutably; but also relatively and extrinsically as beneficent towards creatures (which is called benignity) because it is of the reason of good to be communicative of itself.

III. Although the goodness of God extends itself to all creatures, yet not equally, but exhibits the greatest diversity in the communication of good. Hence one is general (by which he follows all creatures, Ps. 36:6, 7); another special (which has respect to men, Acts 14:17) and another most special (relating to the elect and referred to in Ps. 73:1: “God is good to Israel”). If you seek the causes of this diversity, various ones can be assigned besides his will. (1) It was in accordance with his supreme dominion to show the most free power in diffusing his gifts (which in this inequality is exhibited in the highest manner). (2) The wisdom of God demanded that a certain order should exist in things (which is beheld in the connection of superiors and inferiors). (3) It conduced to the beauty of the universe (which creatures differing in form, actions and qualities render perfect. (4) It afforded a better demonstration of the inexhaustible fountain of divine goodness, since one creature could not receive the full communication of good (thus it should be imparted to more).

IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follow creatures, called "love of the creature" (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called "love of man" (philoanthrōpia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called "the love of the elect" (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroēn) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

V. A threefold love of God is commonly held; or rather there are three degrees of one and the same love. First, there is the love of benevolence by which God willed good to the creature from eternity; second, the love of beneficence by which he does good to the creature in time according to his good will; third, the love of complacency by which he delights himself in the creature on account of the rays of his image seen in them. The two former precede every act of the creature; the latter follows (not as an effect its cause, but as a consequent its antecedent). By the love of benevolence, he loved us before we were; by the love of beneficence, he loves us as we are; and by the love of complacency, he loves us when we are (viz., renewed after his image). By the first he elects us; by the second, he redeems and sanctifies us; but by the third he gratuitously rewards us as holy and just. Jn. 3:16 refers to the first; Eph. 5:25 and Rev. 1:5 to the second; Is. 62:3 and Heb. 11:6 to the third.

VI. These four things in the highest manner commend the love of God towards us: (1) the majesty of the lover; (2) the poverty and unworthiness of the loved; (3) the worth of him in whom we are loved; (4) the multitude and excellence of the gifts which flow out from that love to us. (a) God loves us (who, constituted in the highest preeminence [hyperochē] and happiness, needs us not and is not bound to love us; indeed can most justly hate and destroy us if he so willed). (b) Men are beloved, not only as empty and weak creatures, but as sinners and guilty, rebellious servants, who so far from deserving it, are on the other hand most worthy of hatred and punishment (viz., enemies and covenant breakers). (c) He in whom they are beloved is Christ (Eph. 1:5, 6*), the delight of his heavenly Father and the “express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3*), than whom he could have given nothing more excellent, nothing dearer, even if he had given the whole universe. (d) The effects of his love are both many in number and great in value (viz., all the benefits by which salvation is begun in this life and perfected in the other and, what is the crown and sum of all blessings, the gifts of God himself, who imparts himself to us as an object of fruition both in grace and in glory).

VII. Grace succeeds love from which it is called chnvn (“gracious,” Ex. 34:6) by which God is conceived as willing to communicate himself to the creature from gratuitous love without any merit in the creature and notwithstanding its demerit. Now it is usual to understand it principally in two ways: either affectively (as they say), i.e., with respect to the “internal act” in God; or effectively, with regard to the effects which it produces outwardly in creatures. The former is towards us, and we stand objectively related to it; the latter is in us, and we stand subjectively related to it. In the former sense, it denotes the favor and benevolence of God (of his benignant and disposed will) bestowing all things liberally and gratuitously, not from our merit or desert. Again, this implies either the favor by which he loved and elected us to life from eternity (in which sense election is called “the election of grace” [Rom. 11:5], and we are said to be “predestinated to the praise of the glory of his grace” [Eph. 1:6], i.e., of his glorious grace) or that by which he regards us as graceful and accepted in the Son of his love (in which sense, most especially, the apostle often invokes “grace and peace” upon the believers to whom he writes, i.e., both the favor and benevolence of God and its effects of every kind, which are signified by the word “peace,” according to the Hebrew idiom). In the same sense, mention is made of the grace of God in Rom. 3:24, Lk. 1:30 and Tit. 3:7.

VIII. In the latter sense, grace (taken effectively) indicates all the gifts (charismata) of the Holy Spirit gratuitously given to us by God: whether ordinary – of faith, hope and love – for each one’s salvation bestowed upon us in calling, conversion and sanctification (in which sense the word “grace” is used in 1 Cor. 15:10 and Eph. 2:7, 8); or extraordinary and miraculous – for the common edification of the whole church (which are designated by the name of grace in 1 Cor. 12:4, 7, 8 and Eph. 4:7). The Scholastics were accustomed to calling the latter gifts by the name of grace gratuitously given (gratiae gratis datae), but the others by the name of grace making acceptable (gratiae gratum facientis). But this is false both because the ordinary gifts no less than the others are gratuitously given and because they cannot make us acceptable to God (since this is the effect of the sole grace and righteousness of Christ imputed to us). Therefore grace making acceptable with more propriety implies the benevolence of God towards us by which (not from our merit, but by his gratuitous love) he makes us acceptable in Christ. By grace gratuitously given are indicated all the gifts gratuitously conferred on us through the Holy Spirit. And this grace in reference to the variety of its acts is distinguished into operating or preventing (which moves the will to will) and cooperating and subsequent (which effects the performance of the volition). We will treat the latter in the proper place.

IX. Again, grace is distributed into decretive and executive. The former denotes the eternal purpose of God concerning the electing of us before the foundations of the world were laid. The latter embraces the universal dispensation of that wonderful mystery (according to the variety of degrees and times) which exercised itself towards the elects in redemption and in calling, justification, sanctification and other salutary effects (which Paul alludes to in Eph. 1 and 2 Tim. 1:9, 10).

X. Mercy attends upon the grace of God. For as the latter exercises itself about man as a sinner (granting the pardon of his sin) so the former is exercised about man as miserable (relieving his misery). This is properly ascribed to God not as signifying grief arising from the misery of another (as it is in men), but as indicating a prompt and disposed will to succor the miserable without any anguish or perturbation of mind.

XI. It does not spring from any external cause which usually excites this effect in men (as the tie of blood, of friendship, the company of misery, imbecility of age, sex, etc.). Rather it springs from his goodness alone (as he loves to communicate himself to the creature and as he does not refrain from succoring the miserable). Indeed it requires misery in the object, but only as holding the relation of condition and quality and not of a cause. So freely is it occupied about it, that it can exert or not exert itself without injury to anyone. Hence it is said “he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy” (Rom. 9:18).

XII. Mercy is commonly considered as twofold: the one general by which God succors all creatures subjected to any misery (Ps. 104:27); the other special by which he has compassion on his own, electing out of the mass of fallen men certain ones to be saved through Christ (who are, therefore, called “vessels of mercy”). The former is temporal, occupied only with secular things (ta biōtika) and the good of this life; but the latter is saving and eternal, blessing us with the possession of salvation and of eternal life. 

XIII. The magnitude of his mercy may be collected from various sources: (1) with regard to the principle of pitying, (viz., God who, perfectly happy in himself and in want of nothing ,yet moved by his good pleasure [eudokia] alone, condescended to have mercy upon us); (2) with regard to the objects (i.e., men upon whom he takes pity who not only deserved nothing, but are totally unworthy of this favor as sinners and enemies of God); (3) with regard to the mode and effects because he pardons our innumerable sins, removes eternal misery from us and bestows an infinite and eternal good (to wit, life and salvation); (4) with regard to duration because it is eternal (chmd ‘vlm, Is. 54:8; Hos. 2:19; Lam. 3:22; Lk. 1:55*). Hence it is to be opposed: (a) to the severity of the divine justice, in which sense it is said “to rejoice against judgment” (Jam. 2:13); (b) to the number and heinousness of sins (Mic. 7:18); “For where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5:20), and “God hath concluded all in sin, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32*); (c) to the multitude of miseries and temptations because there is not one so great from which the supreme mercy of God, according to his inexpressible riches, does not free us (Ps. 103:8; Eph. 2:4, 5); (d) to the terror of death and the divine judgment because in that decisive day all the pious will obtain mercy (2 Tim. 1:18).

XIV. Although the mercy of God is most ample and manifold with regard to the effects which are innumerable (in which sense he is called “abundantly merciful” [polyeleos, Ps. 51:1; 1 Pet. 1:3], oiktirmoi [i.e., commiseration and bowels of compassion are ascribed to God, Rom. 12:1]), yet it has its own objects and vessels into which it is poured out (viz., the elect and believers upon whom he determined to have mercy from eternity, who are distinguished from others whom he decreed to pass by and are therefore called “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” (Rom. 9:22). It is an asylum for the penitent and pious, but not a refuge for the impenitent and impious.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 27, 2012)

The usual Arminian argumentation doesn't lie in the phrase "loved the world" nearly so much as in "whosoever will". 

But there is no problem for the Calvinist in this phrase at all - it remains true that God will save any and all who believe on Christ. The question of who it is that will believe and who can believe is not answerable from this verse in any sense, because the verse does not presuppose ability, but is instead merely a statement of identity (that is, that the group of individuals who believe is exactly the same as the group of invididuals who are saved from the wrath of God). To invest John 3:16 with the idea of it being a statement of individuals' ability is to import meaning from outside the text itself... the Arminian interpretation of this verse is one that can only come from outside the text, and as such the verse can't be used as a foundational verse for the Arminian position.


----------



## ch0zen (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> It would help if translators would render the verse correctly. It should be translated something like this;"God loved the world in this way: that he gave His Only unique Son that all who would believe in him would not perish but have eternal life."



Totally agree. It's a shame when I hear pastors and teachers tell us the "God loved the world SOOOOOOOO much, that he sent His only Son..."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Mar 27, 2012)

I know many Christians (especially Arminians) are against this kind of thinking, but I see the free offer of salvation as a sign of God's love toward all mankind, even though he never enables the reprobate to believe. God is not to be blamed for their inability to believe, because it is their own will not to believe. None of us deserves the privilege to get our sins forgiven and to be adopted to God's family. Thus it is very appropriate to say "God so loved the world," even if "the world" is interpreted to mean all men head-for-head.


----------



## MW (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> It would help if translators would render the verse correctly. It should be translated something like this;"God loved the world in this way: that he gave His Only unique Son that all who would believe in him would not perish but have eternal life."



It would help if translators followed the pronominal distinctions throughout this section of John's Gospel, as is done by the AV and RV, so that the dialogue with Nicodemus could be seen to involve "the Jews" as a whole, and not be taken as if it centred on Nicodemus alone. Then the reference to "the world" would be understood in its international significance.

The translation you have presented teaches false theology in that it omits "the only begotten Son."

While it is true that the Greek literally indicates manner and not degree, it is also true that the context does not exclude the degree. As William Hendriksen comments, "The word _so_ by reason of what follows must be interpreted as indicating _in such an infinite degree_ and _in such a transcendantly glorious manner_. Great emphasis is placed on this thought."

Finally, "all who would believe in Him" creates an exclusivity that is not in the original, which is the more to be regretted because the original is intended to be as broadly inclusive as the context will permit.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 27, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > It would help if translators would render the verse correctly. It should be translated something like this;"God loved the world in this way: that he gave His Only unique Son that all who would believe in him would not perish but have eternal life."
> ...



I have rendered the Greek word _monogenes_ as "only unique" which is what it means. If we take it to mean literally "only genetic" then how do we explain the same word used to describe Isaac in Hebrews? All Christians, and to a degree all men, are sons of God, but Jesus was unique.


----------



## MW (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I have rendered the Greek word _monogenes_ as "only unique" which is what it means. If we take it to mean literally "only genetic" then how do we explain the same word used to describe Isaac in Hebrews? All Christians, and to a degree all men, are sons of God, but Jesus was unique.



The Greek word simply does not mean "only unique." It certainly does not mean "only genetic." Hebrews 11:18, "Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." It applies to Isaac in a legal sense.


----------



## athanatos (Mar 28, 2012)

There's lots of debate on monogenes, as meaning unique or begotten. Not to stifle discussion, but I doubt it'll be solved here. Meanwhile, "only genetic", while close to transliteration, by no means comes anywhere close to what it would've meant in their day -- literally or not.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 28, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > I have rendered the Greek word _monogenes_ as "only unique" which is what it means. If we take it to mean literally "only genetic" then how do we explain the same word used to describe Isaac in Hebrews? All Christians, and to a degree all men, are sons of God, but Jesus was unique.
> ...



I certainly agree with you that "only begotten" is a good translation and far better than most modern translations which render it "only" or "one and only." These translations are really only translating half of the Greek word. I think the only issue for the modern reader is that many have lost the sense of what "begotten" means. In Greek it literally means "only born" and in English it means "to procreate as the father." If this word had only been used of Jesus then it would make perfect sense, but its use to describe Isaac informs us that it must have had an additional meaning, hence "unique."


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 28, 2012)

Would it be wrong to suggest that the immediate, though not ultimate, motivation for God to send Jesus into the world was out of a love for the totally mass of fallen humanity? God certainly does have an incredible measure of love for the full number of human beings irrespective of their elected state. Is there not a love in God that motivates him to present the free offer of the gospel to the world as a whole? I see this verse as speaking very easily to a general love of God for the world as an organic unity, while not undermining a special love for his elect which is elsewhere expounded upon in Scripture.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> If this word had only been used of Jesus then it would make perfect sense, but its use to describe Isaac informs us that it must have had an additional meaning, hence "unique."



It is as "promised seed" that Isaac was only begotten. The fact that this was "unique" is entirely dependent on the fact that he was reckoned by the promise to be the only begotten. This means that uniqueness is accidental, not essential, to the concept.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 28, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Would it be wrong to suggest that the immediate, though not ultimate, motivation for God to send Jesus into the world was out of a love for the totally mass of fallen humanity? God certainly does have an incredible measure of love for the full number of human beings irrespective of their elected state. Is there not a love in God that motivates him to present the free offer of the gospel to the world as a whole? I see this verse as speaking very easily to a general love of God for the world as an organic unity, while not undermining a special love for his elect which is elsewhere expounded upon in Scripture.



Of course it would not be wrong, but the point is that John 3:16 does not mean to say that God loved the world sooooo much, but that he loved the world in a particular way as evidenced by the sending of his Son.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 28, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > If this word had only been used of Jesus then it would make perfect sense, but its use to describe Isaac informs us that it must have had an additional meaning, hence "unique."
> ...



Rev. Winzer,

As always you make some excellent points. I completely agree with you theologically and would also agree that the versions that render John 3:16 as "only" or "one and only" are indeed teaching a false theology. I guess my only concern is the lack of understanding among modern English speaking people, especially in America, of the word "begotten." With this in mind, I do think it is possible to render this verse in an alternative way that will still convey the otherness of the Sonship of Christ while at the same time being easier to comprehend. I just think that begotten has lost all relevant meaning for most people today, and that is indeed a sad fact.


----------

