Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Glory of the Gospel (John 3:16) | John Owen

Transcript

The Glory of the Gospel (John 3:16) | John Owen · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome back to Reformed Thinking.
• 0:02
  I'm so glad you're here with us today.
• 0:03
  Thanks. It's really good to be here.
• 0:06
  We have a session ahead of us that I've been looking forward
• 0:09
  to for a long time. You know, sometimes in theology,
• 0:12
  there are texts that just feel like battlegrounds.
• 0:15
  Oh, yeah. Places where lines are drawn,
• 0:16
  flags are planted and, well, let's be honest, voices get
• 0:20
  raised. And today we are walking right
• 0:23
  into the center of that battlefield.
• 0:25
  We really are. Battlefield is the right word
• 0:27
  for it. We're dealing with high stakes
• 0:28
  today. The High We are doing a deep
• 0:31
  dive into perhaps the most famous verse in the entire
• 0:35
  Bible. John 3.16.
• 0:37
  Right. For God so loved the world that
• 0:39
  he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
• 0:43
  should not perish, but have everlasting life.
• 0:46
  Now for most people, that's just the the Sunday school verse.
• 0:49
  It's the verse you see on the bottom of a fast food cup.
• 0:51
  It provides comfort. But in the world of rigorous
• 0:54
  theology, especially when we talk about the extent of the
• 0:57
  atonement, this verse is often weaponized.
• 1:00
  It is. It's frequently the very first
• 1:03
  verse cited by those who oppose the Reformed doctrine of
• 1:07
  particular redemption, or what we commonly call limited
• 1:10
  atonement. The argument is usually
• 1:12
  presented as a well as a slam dunk.
• 1:15
  The text says world. The text says whosoever,
• 1:19
  therefore Christ must have died for every single human being
• 1:23
  without exception, right? And the Calvinist view that
• 1:26
  Christ died specifically for the election, They say that must be
• 1:29
  false. Spot on.
• 1:31
  It's often treated as this Goliath sword intended to just
• 1:34
  cut off the head of reformed theology.
• 1:36
  That's the intention. The whole idea is how can you
• 1:39
  limit the atonement when the Bible clearly says world?
• 1:42
  But today we're going to do something fascinating.
• 1:44
  We are. We're taking that sword and we
• 1:46
  are handing it to one of the greatest Puritan minds, whoever
• 1:49
  lived John Owen. Yes, we are looking at his
• 1:52
  masterwork, The Death of Death and the Death of Christ,
• 1:55
  specifically book 4 chapter 2. Such a dense book.
• 1:58
  It is, and what Owen intends to do here is stunning.
• 2:01
  He doesn't just defend the reform view against John 3 point
• 2:04
  Fence. Team No.
• 2:05
  He goes on the offensive. Right.
• 2:06
  He argues that if you actually read the text, that you look at
• 2:10
  the grammar, the logic, the context.
• 2:12
  John 3.16 is actually a proof text for particular redemption.
• 2:17
  That is a huge claim to take the favorite verse of the universe
• 2:20
  list or the Armenian and say, actually this proves my point,
• 2:23
  not yours. It's bold, very bold.
• 2:26
  So the goal today for you listening is to walk through
• 2:29
  Owens exposition with us. We are going to dismantle the
• 2:33
  common arguments, define what world and Love Actually mean in
• 2:36
  this context, and see if Owen can really prove that this verse
• 2:40
  is about God's special effectual love for his people.
• 2:44
  It's a heavy task, but Owen is up to it and before he even gets
• 2:48
  into the the nitty gritty of the Greek or the logic, he starts
• 2:51
  with a very interesting posture. Yeah, the cautions.
• 2:54
  Right. He gives 3 cautions.
• 2:55
  Yeah. And I think these are vital for
• 2:56
  us to hear because they set the tone for how we should handle
• 2:59
  theological controversy. I noticed that when reading the
• 3:02
  source, he doesn't just jump into the fight, he seems almost
• 3:04
  reluctant. What's that first caution he
• 3:06
  gives? His first caution is a real
• 3:08
  reluctance to even air these heresies, he says.
• 3:12
  Essentially, I would rather these objections be buried than
• 3:16
  brought to light. Wow.
• 3:17
  Yeah, he feels that airing arguments against God's truth,
• 3:21
  even to refute them, is a bit like handling radioactive
• 3:24
  material or a virus. You only bring it out because
• 3:28
  you absolutely have to. That is such a different
• 3:30
  attitude than we see today. Today, everyone wants a hot
• 3:33
  take. Everyone wants to debate online.
• 3:36
  Oh, for sure. But Owen is saying, look, these
• 3:38
  errors deface the truth of God. I wouldn't even mention them if
• 3:41
  men weren't already lying in wait to deceive you.
• 3:43
  He's doing this as a necessary duty, not because he enjoys the
• 3:46
  fight. Precisely.
• 3:47
  It's an antidote. You don't take an antidote for
• 3:49
  fun, you take it because there's poison in the system.
• 3:52
  And that leads to his second caution, which is so critical
• 3:55
  for our discussion today. He warns the reader not to be
• 3:58
  swayed by the sound of words. The sound of words.
• 4:02
  That's a fascinating phrase. It almost feels modern, doesn't
• 4:05
  it? It reminds me of sound bites in
• 4:07
  the media today. We hear a buzzword and we
• 4:10
  immediately react before we even know the context.
• 4:13
  Is that what Owen is getting at? That is spot on.
• 4:15
  Owen is warning against what we might call theological knee jerk
• 4:18
  reactions. When you hear the word world,
• 4:22
  your brain, especially your modern democratic, egalitarian
• 4:25
  brain, immediately paints a picture.
• 4:28
  A very specific picture. Yes, you see a globe, you see
• 4:31
  holding hands, you see every single person.
• 4:34
  Where I see that old Coca-Cola commercial, I'd like to teach
• 4:37
  the world to sing. Yes, that exact vibe.
• 4:39
  You have that emotional resonance and no one says stop
• 4:42
  that resonance. That's just noise.
• 4:44
  That's the sound of the word hitting your eardrums and your
• 4:47
  cultural conditioning. It is not the meaning of the
• 4:50
  text. That's incredibly hard to turn
• 4:51
  off, though. We are so conditioned to think
• 4:53
  that our immediate intuition about a word is the actual
• 4:56
  definition. It's very hard and that's why
• 4:58
  Owen treats it as a discipline, he says.
• 5:00
  We have to hold that sound at Bay.
• 5:02
  We have to suspend our emotional reaction until we've done the
• 5:05
  forensic work. The hard work.
• 5:07
  Right, we have to weigh the scripture, look at the grammar,
• 5:10
  look at the neighbors of that word in the text.
• 5:12
  If you let the sound rule you, you aren't doing theology,
• 5:17
  you're just reacting. That makes a lot of sense.
• 5:19
  It's the difference between reading a headline and reading
• 5:22
  the actual legal contract. The headline gives you a vibe,
• 5:26
  the contract gives you the reality.
• 5:28
  That's a great analogy. And his third caution.
• 5:30
  Focus on the stress of the controversy.
• 5:33
  Ignore the swelling words of vanity.
• 5:35
  Ignore the rhetoric. 0 in on exactly where the difference
• 5:39
  lies. Cut through the fluff.
• 5:41
  Yes, don't get distracted by emotional appeals or straw men.
• 5:45
  What is the logical core of the disagreement?
• 5:48
  That is where we have to live for the next hour.
• 5:50
  OK, let's get to that core. Let's look at how the opponents
• 5:53
  and in Owens day he is dealing with Universalists and
• 5:56
  Armenians, how they set up their trap using John 3.1 steam.
• 6:01
  They have a very specific way of using Scripture, don't they?
• 6:03
  They do. Owen calls it the Scripture
• 6:05
  Perverted approach. He notes that the adversaries
• 6:08
  usually group texts into 3 categories to attack the
• 6:11
  reformed view. First texts that mention the
• 6:14
  world. Second text that mention all in
• 6:16
  every man, and third texts that seem to imply Christ died for
• 6:20
  those who eventually perish. And today, our laser focus is on
• 6:24
  that first category, the argument from the word world.
• 6:27
  It seems so simple on the surface.
• 6:29
  God loved the world. The world is everybody.
• 6:31
  Therefore God loves everybody. Boom, case closed.
• 6:34
  That's the syllogism Owen attacks, and he attacks it with
• 6:38
  brutal logic. He breaks it down into a formal
• 6:41
  argument to show why it is, as he puts it, sophistically false.
• 6:45
  Let's walk through that because I think you listening might be
• 6:48
  thinking, well, that logic sounds pretty sound to me.
• 6:50
  This is where Owen stops being just a theologian and becomes a
• 6:53
  master logician. He really does he.
• 6:55
  Accuses the opposition of committing a very specific
• 6:58
  logical crime. The fallacy of 4 terms.
• 7:00
  Right. And to understand this we need
• 7:02
  to go back to basic logic. A standard syllogism is like a
• 7:06
  bridge with three pillars. A leads to BB leads to C
• 7:10
  Therefore A leads to C You have 3 terms connecting the argument.
• 7:14
  Give us the opponent's argument first so we can see the bridge
• 7:17
  they are trying to build. Their argument goes like this.
• 7:20
  Premise one, God loved the world.
• 7:23
  Premise 2. The world contains every man
• 7:27
  conclusion. Therefore, God loved every man.
• 7:31
  OK, I'm listening. That sounds airtight on the
• 7:33
  surface. Where is the crack in the
• 7:35
  foundation? The crack is in the word world.
• 7:39
  In a valid argument, the middle term must mean the same thing in
• 7:42
  both premises, but here they've switched the meaning.
• 7:44
  Switched it how? In the first premise, God loved
• 7:47
  the world. The word world refers to the
• 7:50
  objects of God's love, the people.
• 7:53
  God doesn't love rocks and dirt in a saving way, so world here
• 7:56
  means inhabitants. OK, so world equals people in
• 8:00
  the first sentence. Correct.
• 8:01
  Now look at the second premise. The world contains every man.
• 8:04
  Does the people contain every man?
• 8:05
  No, that doesn't make grammatical sense.
• 8:07
  In the second premise, they're using world to mean the
• 8:10
  habitable Earth, the container, the globe.
• 8:14
  I see it's a bait and switch. They're using the word world to
• 8:17
  mean people in the first half and planet Earth in the
• 8:19
  second-half, and then trying to glue them together.
• 8:22
  Precisely. They've introduced a fourth
• 8:24
  term. Term 1 is God.
• 8:26
  Term 2 is world as people. Term 3 is world as planet.
• 8:30
  Term 4 is every man. The bridge collapses.
• 8:34
  Owen points out that unless you want to argue that Christ died
• 8:37
  for the fabric of the habitable earth, which he calls a frenzy,
• 8:41
  the logic fails. There is no true medium
• 8:45
  connecting the two premises. That is really helpful.
• 8:47
  It's like saying I put my money in a bank and a bank is the side
• 8:51
  of a river, therefore I put my money in the side of a river.
• 8:53
  You use the word bank twice, but you change the definition
• 8:56
  halfway through. That's a perfect illustration.
• 8:58
  That is the fallacy of four terms.
• 9:00
  So Owen says you cannot rely on the container argument.
• 9:03
  You cannot say because the planet holds everyone, God loves
• 9:06
  everyone. You have to prove that the word
• 9:08
  world in John 3.16 specifically refers to every single
• 9:13
  individual whoever lived. So the argument can't rest on
• 9:16
  the definition of the physical world, it has to rest on the
• 9:18
  scriptural usage of the word world.
• 9:21
  The opponent has to prove that every time the Bible uses the
• 9:23
  word world, or at least in this specific time, it signifies
• 9:26
  every single human being who has ever lived.
• 9:28
  And that is a hill they cannot climb.
• 9:31
  Owen points out that the assertion that world in
• 9:34
  Scripture always signifies every man is demonstrably false.
• 9:39
  I mean, we use this language even today.
• 9:41
  If I say the whole world watch the World Cup final, do I mean
• 9:44
  that a hermit in the Amazon rainforest watched it?
• 9:47
  Do I mean that a newborn baby in Iceland watched it?
• 9:49
  No, you mean a lot of people from all over the place watched?
• 9:52
  It right and scripture does this constantly.
• 9:54
  Owen points a phrases like John 12.19 where the Pharisees say
• 9:59
  behold the world has gone after him.
• 10:01
  Did every single person in existence followed Jesus?
• 10:03
  No, the Pharisees saying it certainly didn't.
• 10:06
  Or Luke 2.1, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all
• 10:10
  the world should be taxed. Did the Aztec Empire get taxed
• 10:13
  by Rome? Did the Chinese dynasties pay
• 10:15
  taxes to Caesar? Obviously not.
• 10:17
  Exactly. Or well, spot on.
• 10:19
  So world is a flexible term. It can mean the physical earth.
• 10:22
  It can mean the system of evil. It can mean the gentiles as
• 10:25
  opposed to the Jews. Can mean a great multitude.
• 10:27
  It rarely, if ever, means every single individual human being
• 10:30
  without exception. So here is the challenge Owen
• 10:33
  lays down. If the word world is ambiguous,
• 10:37
  if it can mean everybody but it can also mean some people, then
• 10:41
  the adversary can't just point to the word and declare victory.
• 10:44
  No, they can't. They have to prove that in this
• 10:46
  specific instance in John 3.16 it signifies every man, woman
• 10:51
  and child whoever lived from Adam to the last man.
• 10:55
  And since the word itself is flexible, we have to look at the
• 10:57
  context. We have to analyze the intent of
• 11:00
  the passage. We have to figure out what John
• 11:02
  actually meant by looking at the other words he uses.
• 11:05
  And to do that, we have to look at the other words in the verse.
• 11:07
  We have to define love. What does it mean that God so
• 11:10
  loved? This is one of my favorite parts
• 11:12
  of Owen's argument. He basically sets up two
• 11:14
  paraphrases. Yes, he says.
• 11:16
  OK, let's read John 3.16 the way the universalist understands it,
• 11:19
  and then let's read it the way the Reformed theologian
• 11:21
  understands it. It's a brilliant exercise when
• 11:23
  you hear them side by side. The contrast is stark.
• 11:27
  Let's look at the Universalist paraphrase first.
• 11:30
  This is how you have to interpret the verse if you
• 11:31
  believe world means everyone and love is universal.
• 11:35
  Let's hear it. It would go something like this
• 11:38
  God so loved, meaning God had a natural inclination or a wish
• 11:43
  for the good of all the world. Meaning Adam and all his
• 11:47
  posterity, including those arguably already in hell at the
• 11:50
  time Christ spoke, gave his Son. Meaning he caused him to
• 11:54
  Incarnate, but without a specific resolution to save
• 11:58
  anyone in particular just to make salvation possible.
• 12:01
  That whosoever. This is meant to divide people,
• 12:04
  to separate those who can do it from those who can't and should
• 12:07
  not perish, meaning they might escape death, though God knows
• 12:10
  many won't. When you put it that way, well,
• 12:12
  it sounds weak. It sounds like a God who is
• 12:13
  crossing his fingers. I really hope this works out.
• 12:16
  It strips the verse of all its muscle.
• 12:18
  Now listen to Owens Reformed paraphrase.
• 12:20
  God so loved meaning a peculiar, transcendent, unchangeable act
• 12:24
  of His will, the world meaning lost men of all sorts, Jews and
• 12:28
  Gentiles, who He peculiarly chose, gave His Son, meaning He
• 12:33
  approved Him to be an all sufficient Savior to effectually
• 12:35
  bring them to glory. That whosoever meaning this
• 12:39
  declares the person's intended, it describes the believers who
• 12:42
  will be revealed should not perish, meaning they will
• 12:45
  certainly obtain the fruit of this love, which is eternal
• 12:48
  life. That is a completely different
• 12:50
  God. 1 is a well wisher, the other is a savior. 1 is hoping
• 12:54
  the other is achieving. That's the core difference, and
• 12:57
  Owen spends a significant amount of time dismantling that first
• 13:00
  definition of love, the idea that God's love is just a
• 13:03
  natural propensity or a general kindness to all mankind.
• 13:06
  Let's impact that because I think many people operate with
• 13:09
  that definition. I think, well, God is love, so
• 13:11
  naturally he loves everyone. He wants everyone to be saved.
• 13:13
  He's doing his best. Why does Owen reject that
• 13:16
  natural affection model? He has several devastating
• 13:19
  arguments against it. Owen asks you to follow that
• 13:22
  logic to its end. If God have a natural burning
• 13:25
  desire for the salvation of Judas, and Judas ends up in
• 13:28
  hell, what just happened to God's desire?
• 13:31
  It was thwarted. It was frustrated.
• 13:32
  Yes, and a frustrated God is an imperfect God.
• 13:36
  This is the argument from imperfection.
• 13:38
  Owen argues that if God has a natural propensity toward a
• 13:41
  specific good, the salvation of soul, and that good is not
• 13:45
  achieved, then God is eternally unhappy.
• 13:48
  He is eternally disappointed. He is a God who is constantly
• 13:52
  missing the March of his own desires.
• 13:54
  That implies weakness. It implies that God is subject
• 13:57
  to the will of man. If I want something and can't
• 13:59
  get it, I'm limited. If God wants something and can't
• 14:01
  get it, he is limited. Owen calls this a validity, a
• 14:05
  weak, ineffectual wish, and he says we cannot attribute
• 14:08
  validity to the Almighty. The God of the Bible doesn't
• 14:10
  wish, he decrees. He acts if he sets his love on
• 14:14
  you. That love is an unstoppable
• 14:15
  force, not a sentimental hope. That connects back to the Wisdom
• 14:18
  argument too, right? The argument from Wisdom.
• 14:20
  It does. Think about it, if God loves
• 14:23
  these people enough to send his son to die for them, but his
• 14:27
  wisdom stops him from actually saving them, isn't there a
• 14:30
  conflict in God? Or flip it around.
• 14:33
  Is it wise to pay the ultimate price, the death of the Son, for
• 14:36
  something you know you won't get?
• 14:37
  Yeah, if I pay $1,000,000 for a house that I know burned down
• 14:41
  yesterday, I'm not loving. I'm foolish.
• 14:43
  Precisely, Owen says. If God has foreknowledge, which
• 14:47
  he does, he knows who will perish.
• 14:49
  He knows Cain is lost if he sends his son to pay the
• 14:52
  infinite price for Cain, knowing Cain will never receive it.
• 14:55
  That is an irrational transaction, right?
• 14:57
  Owen calls a desire that cannot be prosecuted A brutish
• 15:00
  affection. It's acting on instinct without
• 15:03
  wisdom. God doesn't act irrationally.
• 15:05
  If he pays the price, he secures the purchase.
• 15:07
  Then there is the argument from Scripture.
• 15:10
  The Bible doesn't describe God's mercy as a natural reflex, does
• 15:13
  it? No, it doesn't.
• 15:15
  The Scripture says in Romans 9 he has mercy on whom he will
• 15:18
  have mercy. It is a free act of the will.
• 15:20
  It's discerning. It's selective.
• 15:22
  If mercy were just God's natural state, like he coming off of
• 15:25
  fire, then he would have to be merciful to everyone equally.
• 15:29
  Which brings us to the argument from equality.
• 15:32
  Right. If this love is natural, it must
• 15:34
  be equal to all. God would have to love those in
• 15:37
  hell as much as those in heaven. He would have to love Judas as
• 15:39
  much as Peter. In fact, he would have to love
• 15:41
  the fallen angels as much as humans because they are also his
• 15:44
  creatures. Right, he made them too.
• 15:46
  But we know he doesn't. He provided no redemption for
• 15:49
  demons. So clearly God saving love is
• 15:52
  discriminatory. It is a choice.
• 15:55
  So if love in just 3.16 isn't this weak general wisp, what is
• 15:59
  it? Owen zooms in on that little
• 16:00
  word. So Kutos in the Greek God so
• 16:04
  loved. That word is the hinge.
• 16:05
  It indicates degree. It indicates intensity.
• 16:08
  Owen argues this versus describing the most eminent,
• 16:10
  transcendent love possible. Think about the evidence given
• 16:14
  for this love. What is the proof of the love?
• 16:16
  The gift he gave His only begotten Son.
• 16:19
  Yes, he didn't give a servant, he didn't give an Angel, he
• 16:22
  didn't give the stars or the riches of creation.
• 16:25
  He gave his Isaac his only one. Owen says this is the highest
• 16:29
  possible testimony of love. Now here are the logic.
• 16:33
  If this is the greatest love God has.
• 16:36
  Then it can't be common to those who perish.
• 16:37
  You've got it. If God gives his greatest love
• 16:40
  to a man who ends up in hell, then what is left for the man in
• 16:43
  heaven? Did the man in heaven get a
• 16:45
  greater than greatest love? No, that doesn't make.
• 16:48
  Sense No. The love in John 3.16 is the
• 16:51
  peak, it's the summit. Therefore, the recipients of
• 16:54
  this love must be the ones who actually received the benefit of
• 16:57
  it. That is such a heavy point.
• 16:59
  If God so loved the reprobate but sends them to hell, then his
• 17:03
  so love doesn't actually save. It turns the love of God into
• 17:06
  something impotent. It turns the death of Christ
• 17:09
  into a gesture rather than a rescue mission.
• 17:12
  It leads to the terrifying conclusion that the love of God
• 17:15
  is not enough, that you need God's love plus your own effort
• 17:18
  or your own smarts, your own free will, to actually make it
• 17:20
  work. And Owen says no.
• 17:22
  Right, Owen says no. The purpose of the giving is
• 17:24
  that they might not perish. If God gives a son to prevent
• 17:28
  perishing and they do perish, God has failed.
• 17:31
  But if God gives a son to the elect and they do not perish,
• 17:35
  then the intention matches the result.
• 17:37
  So we have established that the love here is a special effectual
• 17:40
  saving love. But we still have that stubborn
• 17:43
  word world. If Owen believes this verse
• 17:46
  refers to the elect, why on earth did the apostle John use
• 17:49
  the word world? Why didn't he just write God so
• 17:52
  loved the elect? It would have saved us 2000
• 17:54
  years of arguments. It's a fair question, and Owen
• 17:57
  gives us four or five very specific reasons why the Holy
• 18:00
  Spirit chose the word world, and none of them imply every single
• 18:04
  human being. What's the first reason?
• 18:06
  The first is to show the nature of the condition of the elect
• 18:09
  before God saves us. What are we?
• 18:10
  We aren't angels, we aren't spirits.
• 18:12
  We are of the world. We are earthly, lost, miserable,
• 18:15
  sinful. Calling the elect the world
• 18:18
  highlights the grace of God. He loved us even when we were
• 18:21
  world. It highlights our unworthiness.
• 18:24
  That is beautiful. It's like saying God love the
• 18:26
  trash heap. He doesn't mean he loves every
• 18:28
  piece of trash. He means he loved people who
• 18:31
  belong to the trash heap to pull them out.
• 18:33
  Spot on. Secondly, Owen argues it's to
• 18:37
  distinguish the object of love from the fallen angels.
• 18:40
  Hebrews 2.1 Zig says he doesn't give hell to angels but to the
• 18:45
  offspring of Abraham. By using the term world, he is
• 18:48
  flagging that this redemption is for mankind, the inhabitants of
• 18:51
  the distinct terrestrial sphere, not the celestial sphere of the
• 18:55
  demons. OK, that's a theological
• 18:56
  distinction, but I think the third reason is the most
• 18:58
  historically relevant right, the context of Nicodemus.
• 19:01
  This is crucial. We forget how Jewish the context
• 19:03
  was. The Jews believed they were the
• 19:05
  people and everyone else was fueled for the fire.
• 19:07
  They had a saying that the Gentiles are created to keep
• 19:10
  hell burning. For a Jew like Nicodemus, the
• 19:12
  Messiah was their Messiah. He was coming to save Israel and
• 19:16
  crush the nations. So when John writes, God loved
• 19:19
  the world. He is shattering that Jewish
• 19:21
  exclusivity. He's saying no, Nicodemus, God's
• 19:24
  love isn't just the lineage of Abraham, it is for the world.
• 19:29
  It signifies that the elect are scattered among all nations,
• 19:32
  tongues and tribes. It's not God loved Israel, it's
• 19:35
  God loved the world, meaning the elect are on from every corner
• 19:38
  of the globe. That aligns perfectly with
• 19:40
  Revelation, where we see the multitude from every tribe and
• 19:43
  tongue. They are a world of people, yes.
• 19:46
  And Owen provides scriptural precedents where world clearly
• 19:49
  means the elect or believers. He doesn't just make this up.
• 19:52
  Look at John 4.42. The Samaritans called Jesus the
• 19:55
  savior of the world. Well, is he the savior of those
• 19:57
  he doesn't save? No, he's the savior of the elect
• 20:00
  world. Or John 6.51, I give my flesh
• 20:03
  for the life of the world. Does everyone have eternal life?
• 20:05
  No, only the elect have life. Romans 4.13 is another one.
• 20:10
  He lists Abraham heir of the world.
• 20:12
  That obviously means the faithful, not every Pagan.
• 20:14
  Right and 2nd Corinthians 5.1 time God was in Christ
• 20:18
  reconciling the world to Himself.
• 20:20
  Note the result reconciling. If you are reconciled, you are
• 20:24
  not an enemy, you are not in hell.
• 20:27
  So this world that is reconciled must be the world of believers.
• 20:30
  So positively, world fits the elect perfectly.
• 20:33
  But Owen also argues negatively. He plays out the scenario.
• 20:37
  What happens if we insist world means every single person?
• 20:40
  He says it leads to absurdities. It leads to what we might call
• 20:43
  the revelation problem. If God loved everyone in the
• 20:46
  world enough to give his Son for them, why didn't he even reveal
• 20:49
  Christ to millions of people? Think the vast populations in
• 20:52
  the Americas or Asia or Africa for thousands of years who never
• 20:57
  heard the name of Yahweh or Jesus.
• 20:59
  That is a hard pill to swallow for the universalist.
• 21:01
  If God so loved the Aztec warrior in 1400 AD that he died
• 21:05
  for him, why didn't he send a messenger?
• 21:07
  Why did he let him die in darkness?
• 21:08
  Right. Owen asks.
• 21:09
  Well, I love them enough to die, but not love them enough to tell
• 21:12
  them. It suggests A schizophrenic God.
• 21:15
  It suggests a God who builds A lifeboat but refuses to tell the
• 21:17
  drowning passengers where it is. That's not love.
• 21:20
  And the effectual problem Why love them and yet not give them
• 21:24
  the power to believe faith is a gift?
• 21:26
  If God loves everyone, why does he withhold the gift of faith
• 21:30
  from so many? And the intercession problem.
• 21:32
  This connects to Romans 8.32. He who did not spare his own
• 21:36
  Son, but gave him up for us all, how will He not also with Him
• 21:39
  graciously give us all things? This is a package deal.
• 21:43
  If God gave the sun for you, He will give you all things, faith,
• 21:47
  repentance, perseverance, glory. You cannot break the package.
• 21:50
  You get all of it or none of it? Yes.
• 21:52
  You can't say God gave the sun for that guy but didn't give him
• 21:55
  faith. No, if you didn't get faith, he
• 21:57
  didn't get the sun. That logic is ironclad.
• 21:59
  It really forces you to choose. Either God gave the sun for
• 22:02
  everyone and everyone gets all things, which is universalism,
• 22:04
  or God gave the sun for the elect and they get all things,
• 22:07
  which is the reformed view, the middle ground.
• 22:09
  God gave the sun for everyone, but most get nothing.
• 22:11
  Nothing else breaks the promise of Romans 8.
• 22:14
  And finally there is the double jeopardy or double payment
• 22:17
  problem. This touches on justice.
• 22:19
  If Christ died for the world, meaning everyone, then he paid
• 22:24
  for the sins of everyone. He paid for the sins of Esau.
• 22:27
  He paid for the sins of Judas. Right, the dead is cleared.
• 22:30
  So why are Esau and Judas in hell?
• 22:33
  They are in hell paying for their sins.
• 22:36
  But wait, if Christ paid for them and they pay for them
• 22:38
  again, God is exacting payment twice for the same debt, once
• 22:42
  from his Son and once from the Sinner.
• 22:44
  Is that justice? No, that's injustice.
• 22:47
  If the debt is paid, the prisoner goes free.
• 22:49
  If the prisoner stays, the debt wasn't paid.
• 22:51
  Spot on. So, Owen concludes, world cannot
• 22:55
  mean every single person. It must mean the elect scattered
• 22:58
  throughout the world. OK, we've handled love, we
• 23:00
  handled world. Now we have to deal with the
• 23:02
  mechanism. The whosoever that whosoever
• 23:05
  believeth in him should not perish.
• 23:07
  This is the part where the Armenian says, aha, see, it's a
• 23:10
  condition. Anyone can believe, It's up to
• 23:12
  you. This is a very common
• 23:13
  misunderstanding. The Greek phrase is in a pass
• 23:16
  who piston literally that every believer or that the believing
• 23:21
  1. Owen clarifies that this is not
• 23:24
  a distributive term meant to divide the world into two camps
• 23:27
  where God is passively waiting to see who joins which camp.
• 23:30
  So it's not God saying I've thrown the life preserver into
• 23:33
  the ocean. I hope someone grabs it.
• 23:34
  No, Owen argues. The phrase is declarative.
• 23:37
  It declares the means by which the loved ones, the elect, will
• 23:41
  be brought to the end, which is eternal life.
• 23:43
  It explains God's plan. God is saying I love this world
• 23:47
  of my people and how will I save them?
• 23:49
  I will save them through faith. So whosoever believes is not a
• 23:52
  hurdle we have to jump over to get God's love.
• 23:54
  It's the path God creates for His loved ones to walk on.
• 23:58
  Precisely, And Owen sets up a dilemma here regarding
• 24:00
  restriction. Think about it.
• 24:02
  Does the phrase whosoever believes restrict God's love?
• 24:05
  Let's trace that out. If you say yes, God only loves
• 24:09
  those who believe, then universalism fails because God
• 24:13
  doesn't love the unbelievers. If you say no God loves everyone
• 24:17
  regardless of belief, then God loves those who perish.
• 24:21
  And if he loves those who perish, his love is in vain.
• 24:24
  It is a trap for the opponent. Either God's love is limited to
• 24:27
  believers, which is our view, or God's love is wasted on people
• 24:30
  in hell. And Owen takes it a step
• 24:32
  further. He asks, where does this faith
• 24:34
  come from? Is faith something we generate
• 24:36
  on our own? No.
• 24:38
  Scripture says faith is the gift of God.
• 24:39
  It's a fruit of the Spirit. So faith is a fruit of this
• 24:42
  love, not a condition outside of it.
• 24:45
  God gives the Son so that they may have life.
• 24:47
  Implicit in that is giving them the means fate to attain it.
• 24:50
  So the whosoever is not a challenge, it is a promise I
• 24:54
  have sent my son and the result will be a people who believe.
• 24:57
  Yes, and look at the intention should not perish.
• 25:00
  This is the negative purpose clause.
• 25:02
  If God sent the Son for the world meeting, everyone and his
• 25:05
  intention was they should not perish, but millions do perish.
• 25:09
  Then God fails. God fails in his intention.
• 25:12
  The doctor lost the patient, the rescuer dropped the swimmer.
• 25:16
  But in the Reformed view, God intended to save the elect the
• 25:19
  believing world. And do they perish?
• 25:22
  Never my sheep hear my voice, and I give them eternal life,
• 25:26
  and they shall never perish. The intention matches the result
• 25:29
  perfectly. God attempts 100% salvation of
• 25:33
  His people and He achieves 100% salvation of His people.
• 25:36
  When you lay it out like that, it really does come down to a
• 25:39
  comparison of two different views of God.
• 25:42
  Owen is forcing us to look at the God of the universalist view
• 25:45
  versus the God of the Bible. Let's weigh them.
• 25:47
  View a the universalist view. God has a general natural wish
• 25:51
  for everyone's good. It's a warm fuzzy feeling.
• 25:54
  He sends Christ to die for everyone, but He leaves the
• 25:56
  application of that death up to the fickle will of sinful man.
• 25:59
  Most people never even hear about it.
• 26:01
  Many who here rejected God's love is fruitless for the
• 26:04
  majority of humanity, and this is the darkest part.
• 26:07
  Christ's death pays for sins that are still punished in hell.
• 26:11
  That's the double jeopardy argument again.
• 26:12
  It implies God is unjust and that the cross wasn't actually
• 26:15
  sufficient to save anyone on its own.
• 26:17
  It needs my YES to activate it. Exactly.
• 26:20
  It's a tragedy, a loving God, a dying savior, and yet a
• 26:23
  populated hell. Now compare view B, the own
• 26:27
  Reformed view. God has a transcendent, special
• 26:31
  love for his elects, scattered in all nations.
• 26:33
  He doesn't just wish them well, He decrees their rescue.
• 26:36
  He sends Christ to effectively redeem them, to actually buy
• 26:39
  them back. He grants them the faith to
• 26:41
  believe they inevitably receive eternal life.
• 26:44
  No drop of Christ's blood is wasted.
• 26:46
  Every sin paid for is a sin forgiven. 1 is a potential
• 26:49
  savior, the other is an actual savior.
• 26:51
  And no one reinforces this with that Greek word for love,
• 26:54
  agapao. He says it signifies validate,
• 26:57
  elects it to love so as to rest in that love.
• 26:59
  It is satisfied love, a completed love.
• 27:02
  This cannot coexist with eternal wrath against the same person.
• 27:05
  You can't rest in love over someone you are casting into the
• 27:07
  lake of fire. It changes the whole texture of
• 27:10
  the verse. God so loved the world is not a
• 27:13
  desperate plea, it is a victory shout.
• 27:16
  It's God saying I have loved my people from every tribe and I
• 27:19
  have sent my son to secure them and they will not perish.
• 27:23
  It makes the verse a rock for the believer.
• 27:25
  This is the ultimate comfort. If you interpret this verse the
• 27:28
  Armenian way, God's love is a maybe it's I love you provided
• 27:32
  you do your part. But if you interpret it Owens
• 27:34
  way, God's love is a certainty. I love you and I've done the
• 27:38
  part that guarantees you will be mine.
• 27:40
  That is the So what for you listening.
• 27:42
  If you are a believer, this text tells you that the love God has
• 27:45
  for you is the same love that sent Christ.
• 27:48
  It is rock solid. It is effectual.
• 27:50
  It isn't waiting on you to validate it.
• 27:51
  It's the force that validated you and.
• 27:53
  That's why Owen fought so hard for this.
• 27:55
  It wasn't just to win a debate. It was to secure the assurance
• 27:58
  of the Saints. If God's love can fail for the
• 28:00
  world, it can fail for you. But if God's love for the world,
• 28:04
  the elect, is unfailing, then you are safe.
• 28:06
  As we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave you with a
• 28:09
  thought. We started by saying John 3.16
• 28:12
  is often used as a weapon against reformed theology, but
• 28:15
  after walking through Owen's arguments, it feels more like a
• 28:17
  fortress for reformed theology. It absolutely is.
• 28:21
  It is a text about the magnitude of God's special love.
• 28:24
  It defines the world not by geography but by grace, the
• 28:28
  chosen out of the mass of fallen humanity.
• 28:31
  And here is a final, provocative thought for you to chew on as
• 28:33
  you go about your week. We often hear people say they
• 28:36
  prefer a God who loves everyone even if he cannot save everyone,
• 28:39
  over a God who chooses to save some.
• 28:41
  They think the universal wish is more loving.
• 28:43
  But ask yourself this, If we accept that God's love in John
• 28:47
  3.16 is universal but ineffectual for many, do we
• 28:50
  unknowingly strip God of his omnipotence and his wisdom?
• 28:53
  Is a God who tries to save and fails a God who is eternally
• 28:57
  defeated by the stubbornness of the human heart actually a God
• 29:00
  worthy of worship? Or is he just a very nice, very
• 29:03
  disappointed observer? That is the question.
• 29:05
  A God who saves or a God who hopes?
• 29:08
  Owen points us to the God who saves.
• 29:10
  Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into the mind of John
• 29:13
  Owen. We hope this challenges you,
• 29:15
  encourages you, and maybe makes you read John 3.16 with fresh
• 29:18
  eyes. Until next time.
• 29:20
  Keep thinking goodbye.