For whom did God die?

For whom did God die?

In my previous blog entry, I reflected on John 3:16 and its implication on the extent of Christ's work on the Cross.This blog will continue with the question of ‘for whom did God die’ still exists. For the Arminians, redemption is universal in scope (because God loves everyone) but not effective for every person (because not everyone responded with faith). For the Calvinist, redemption is particular in scope (because not everyone is chosen/elected), but always effective for the elect. The Arminians accused Calvinists that they are not fair, they say Calvinist attempt to limit God’s atonement. However, upon closer examination, one can see that their accusation has not been fair or accurate. Calvinists are not trying to make God look bad. Just as there is no contradiction between a loving God and the reality of hell, there is no contradiction between a loving God and the doctrine of election.

Firstly, if the redemption is universal in scope but not effective for every person (since Arminians believe we can reject salvation), the Arminians are also placing a limit on God’s atonement. There is no difference on the number of people saved, despite the Arminians’ claim to liberality. For the Arminians, it is Man choose God; for the Calvinist, it is God choose Man. From John 3:16 “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish”, it is also obvious that not everyone would be saved. Though the Arminian emphasized free will, the Calvinist’s view of irresistible grace is much more gracious than the Arminian’s belief of freewill salvation.

Secondly, “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish” (John 3:16) tells us that the gospel is to be preached to everyone. We should remind ourselves that election is not "information" from which we are to decide whether or not to respond to God in faith, or worry whether or not we are elect, or use as an excuse if we decide we are reprobate. Rather, it is the Gospel, the Good News that God has chosen to make salvation available in Christ by faith to all who respond and that ultimately we need not depend upon our own resources (since they are never sufficient) but upon the grace of God alone. How can one say that God is unfair when one cannot be sure that God did not elect him/her? If one thinks that God is unfair, they can believe in the Gospel and persevere!

Thirdly, there is the question of infant baptism. I believe that infant baptism supports the biblical view of election (thus particular atonement) based on God’s grace and divine sovereignty. The practice the baptism of infants in many of the Protestant Churches shows that John 3:16 “For God so loved the world” is not untrue as God saves the elect (such as infant) even before he can believe. Methodists (Wesleyans & Arminians) believe that God elect based on foreknowledge that the person will believe, but what if the infant are not able to live to an age (maybe to accidents or illnesses) where he can believe? Under the Arminian theological framework, how does God treat these cases? For the Calvinist (Presbyterians & Reformed Churches), the practice the baptism of infants does not face this problem since an infant is saved because it is based on God’s election and covenantal promise.

However, Methodists in Singapore practice infant baptism, as it is seen as ‘a sign of the child's belonging to the Church of God’¹. Methodists in Singapore believed that:

It is the grace of God which even enables the believer to repent and receive God's grace. It is the grace that enables the believer to repent and receive God's grace. It is the grace that enables the believer to grow in faith and in doing God's will. [See A Methodist view of the Sacraments and Observances, Section on ‘Holy Baptism’ at http://www.trac-mcs.org.sg/discipleship/ms1.htm. Emphasis is bold is mine]

Thus, it seems that local Methodists’ view is much closer to the Calvinist (at least on paper!); they believe that infants (& all elected) are still saved because of God’s grace and sovereignty, and not because of God’s foreknowledge that we (including infants) would believe.

In his Institutes, Turretin distinguishes between those who have "the saving habit of acting faith" (or "actual faith") and those who have faith in its "principle and root," which an infant can possess since he "can have the Holy Spirit, with which to believe in his own time" (Institutes 19.20.19). Likewise, Junius says, "regarding the species of faith, it is to be considered both with regard to its first act and (as they say) its second." Infants are capable of faith as it in its first act and thus "it false to argue that infants are completely incapable of faith," though this is "God's secret and hidden thing" (Theses Theologicae 51.7). Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638) similarly maintains that while infants may be "destitute of what is called 'actual faith', they are not on that account destitute of all faith...Faith in principle and seed, and virtually, is to be attributed to elect infants" (Theologia, Scholastica Didactica, 785).

The example of David’s situation in the OT clearly shows this. When his infant child died, David is given the confidence that he will see that child again in heaven. This story of David and dying child gives a tremendous consolation to parents who have lost infants to death. From David’s strong belief, it can also be seen that it is not by the infants’ innocence but by God’s grace that they are received into heaven. We come into this world with a sin nature, and so the baby that dies, dies as a sinful child. And when that child is received into heaven, he is received by grace. If a child is elected, he would surely be saved.

1 The Articles of Religion in the "Methodist Discipline" (1976, para 17) clearly state: "The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church." The objective work of God is available to infants. The child is initiated into the Body of Christ in a spiritual manner. An infant who is baptized has the parents or others as sponsors or godparents. At the baptism service they hold themselves responsible for safeguarding the welfare of the child, especially in its spiritual nurture. The congregation itself is held responsible for the Christian nurture of the child. The baptized child is enrolled as a preparatory member of the church. Infant baptism is:

1. a dedication of the child to God

2. a pledge of the parents and others to carry out their duties in the child's Christian nurture.

3. a sign of the child's belonging to the Church of God

4. a mark (seal) of the Holy Spirit's work in the child.

In every baptism there is the establishment of a mystical union of the baptized person with Christ. Here again it is an act of faith that God can do more than we expect through His grace and might. (Mark 10:13-16). [Source: A Methodist view of the Sacraments and Observances, http://www.trac-mcs.org.sg/discipleship/ms1.htm]

Reflection on John 3:16

Most Christians believe that God sent his Son to save us. If we believe in him (John 3) through faith [1], we would be saved. But on the point of ‘for whom is the redemption applied to’, there is some disagreement. This is not without reason. In the bible, there seem to be various verses that teach a universal reference for the saving work of Jesus Christ (John 12:32; Rom 3:22-24; 5:18; 8:32; I Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2:5-6; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9) or a universal saving will on God’s part (Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).(Dr Robert Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith [ANSTCF], p. 685)

So, for whom did God die? Maybe it will be good to start examining this issue by turning to biblical passages, and beginning with our most familiar passage, John chapter 3, focusing especially on verse 16.

John 3:10-20 (New International Version)

10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

John 3:16

The word ‘world’ quite likely has the same meaning as in I John 2:15. Warfield, for example, commented that:

[The term “world”] is not here a term of extension as much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the word is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when he gave his son for it. … The passage was not intended to teach, and certainly does not teach, that God loves all men alike and visits each and everyone alike with the same manifestation of love: and as little was intended to teach or does it teach that his love is confined to a few especially chosen individuals selected out of the world. What it is intended to do is to arouse in our hearts a wondering sense of the marvel and mystery of the love of God for the sinful world –conceived here, not quantitative but qualitatively as, in its very distinguishing characteristic, sinful. [See B B Warfield, “God’s Immeasurable Love,” in Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), p. 516, emphasis in bold is mine]

Indeed, the “wondering sense of the marvel and mystery of the love of God for the sinful world” is stressed in chapters 13-17 of the John Gospel. As Dr D A Carson wrote:

Both the verb ‘to love’ (agapaō) and the noun ‘love’ (agapē) occur much more frequently in chs. 13-17 than anywhere else in the Fourth Gospel, reflecting the fact that John devotes special attention to the love relationships amongst the Father, the Son and the disciples. (PNTC, 1991, p. 204)

Warfield is not alone in this interpretation. John Gill, an eminent 18^th century Baptist theologian, in his commentary on John, wrote: “Not every man in the world is here meant, or all the individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God’s special love, which is here designed.” Therefore, it is most likely Warfield is correct in saying that "world" in John 3:16 means "sinner"—without stating which ones. It seems that the "world" in John 3:16 is not to teach ‘election’ or ‘universal redemption’. John 3:16 would be analogous to Rom. 5:6 (‘For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.’) where Paul states that Christ died for the "ungodly"—without stating which ones.

The “For God so loved the world” in John 3:16 show that God loves both the elect and the non-elect. There is no doubt on this, since other bible passages (both OT & NT) support this. In the OT, for example, we have Psalm 145:9: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.” In the NT, we have Luke 6:35 (“he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil”). Here, God teaches us love our enemies for even God himself loves all (includes the elect).

How do we define the “world” (cosmos) in John 3:16? The general redemption view assumes that this word must refer to each and every person that ever lived. However, this is not the biblical meaning. The BAGD defines “cosmos” in John 3:16 as referencing “all mankind, but especially of believers, as the objects of God’s love.” This, however, is a theological interpretation. From TDNT (vol. 3) and BAGD (pp. 446-447), it is clear that in the entire NT, there is no instances of cosmos referring to every single person who has ever lived.

How do we explain “For God so loved the world” in John 3:16? NT scholar Dr D A Carson pointed out that:

Because John 3:16 is sandwiched between vv.14-15 and v. 17, the fact that God gave his one and only Son is tied both to the Son’s incarnation (v. 17) and to his death (vv. 14-15). That is the immediate result of the love of God for the world: the mission of the Son. His ultimate purpose is the salvation of those in the world who believes in him […] (PNTC, p. 206, italics mine)

Indeed, if we were to look at the surrounding verses of John 3:16 (NASB), we see the repeated occurrence of the word ‘believe’ and ‘Son of God’:

v. 12: "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

v.13: " No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

v.14: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

v.15: so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

v. 16: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

v. 17: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

v. 18: "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

In 7 verses (btw John 3: 12-18), the word ‘believe’ occurs 5 times and ‘Son of God’ (or ‘Son’) occurs 5 times. Though it seems much fairer to say God want to save everyone, the bible clearly shows that the ones who are saved (John 3:3,5, 15,16,17) are only those who “believes in him” (John 3:15, 16,18) and not everyone.

John 3:15-18 (NIV):

15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:15-18 (NASB):

15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

As a conclusion, it can be seen that at the Synod of Dort, Calvinists is right to affirm that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.

[1] There are 3 elements of faith: knowledge (the intellectual element; Mind), assent (the emotional element; Heart) and trust (the voluntary/volitional element; Will).

Is God really bad?

Atheist Thomas Jefferson described God as “cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” (cited in George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989, pp. 76-78.) Jefferson cited Isaiah 45:7, where God says “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”(ESV)

However, in this verse, the Hebrew word for “calamity” (ESV) or “disaster” (NIV) does not mean “moral evil.” In fact, Hebrew linguist tell us that the word need not have any moral connotations at all. The ESV seems more accurate as this word would be perfectly fitting for the plagues that God inflicted on the Egyptians through Moses. These plagues involved not moral evil but rather calamitous events engineered to bring the Egyptians to repentance. God as judge of the earth can rightly inflict such plagues on sinful human beings without having his character impugned with accusations of evil. Certainly such plagues may seem evil to those experiencing them, but the reality is that these people were experiencing due justice.

If we were to read the bible as a whole (& not out of context), we would understand that God is morally perfect. The bible is clear that God is morally perfect (cf. Deut. 32:4; Matt. 5:48), and it is impossible for him to sin (Heb 6:18). He punish sin because his absolute justice demands that. In the case of the Egyptians, God was merely bringing just justice on unrepentant sinners. God’s good end –the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage –was the result of this judgment.