Sovereign Reprobation Harsh but True!

Sovereign Reprobation Harsh but True!

The Church of the Lord Jesus was meant to be the “pillar and ground of the truth” [I Tim. 3:15]. And just as He came to bear witness to the truth, even so, the ministers of God are commanded to preach the whole truth which is synonymous to sound doctrine. Like everything else sound doctrine has two sides to it, the sweet and the bitter. When the Word of God says that, “men will not endure sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], it usually means the bitter side of sound doctrine. Men generally will most eagerly welcome the doctrine of election but will not endure its opposite i.e., reprobation. They will eagerly welcome a doctrine which emphasizes the Lord’s blessings but will want nothing to do with one that demands the cost of discipleship.

There are those who not only ignore the doctrine of reprobation but at times outrightly deny it. Take John MacArthur,Jr., for instance, he says,

John MacArthur wrote:
“You’ll never find any place in the Bible that God sends people to hell, you’ll never find any place in the Bible that God damns people. If men choose to go to hell, they go there because they pronounce their own sentence in rejecting Jesus Christ” (Tape GC 1746).

Well, that is true, but it is only a part of the truth. It is the truth from the human side. But there is a divine side too, and this side of the truth needs to be stressed or God will be robbed of His glory.

There can be no election without its opposite, reprobation. The very terms “elect” and “Election” imply the terms “non-elect” and “Reprobation”. Every choice, evidently and necessarily implies a refusal, for where there is no leaving out there can be no choice. If there be some whom God has elected unto salvation [II Thess. 2:13], there must be others who are not elected unto salvation. If there be some who are not appointed unto wrath [I Thess. 5:9], there must be others who are appointed to wrath. The Scripture speaks of those who stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed [I Pet. 2:8].

Though the doctrine of reprobation is offensive to the carnal mind, there are those who are compelled to admit that the Bible does teach reprobation, only because there are explicit verses that establish this fact. But they subtly adulterate this biblical truth by speaking of it only as a judicial act of God. In other words, God, they say only hardens and reprobates those who have rejected His truth. Once again consider the words of MacArthur,

John MacArthur wrote:
“Those who perish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ; not because they were created for hell and predetermined to go there.”
[MacArthur’s Commentary Bible 2 Peter 3:9].

While speaking on the doctrine of Reprobation, one fact needs to be established. i.e. that the cause of the divine decree of reprobation is not to be found in anything else other than the sovereign good pleasure of God. I quote below a commentary on Romans 9:18-20 by A.W. Pink.

A.W. Pink wrote:
“Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth”. The “therefore” announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God’s dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sovereign will of the Creator. He loves one and hates another, He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, without reference to anything save His own sovereign will.
That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening—”Whom He will He hardeneth”—and it is just here that so many commentators and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, i.e., a forsaking by God because these subjects of His displeasure had first rejected His truth and forsaken Him. Those who contend for this interpretation appeal to such scriptures as Rom. 1:19-26—”God gave them up”, that is (see context) those who “knew God” yet glorified Him not as God (v. 21). Appeal is also made to II Thess. 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word “harden” does not occur in either of these passages. But further. We submit that Rom. 9:18 has no reference whatever to judicial “hardening”. The apostle is not there speaking of those who had already turned their backs on God’s truth, but instead, he is dealing with God’s sovereignty, God’s sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to whom He wills, but also in hardening whom He pleases. The exact words are “Whom He will”—not “all who have rejected His truth”—”He hardeneth”, and this, coming immediately after the mention of Pharaoh, clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is plain enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth.

“Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will he hardenteth”. This affirmation of God’s sovereign “hardening” of sinners’ hearts—in contradistinction from judicial hardening—is not alone. Mark the language of John 12:37-40, “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”

Now, reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will believe what God has revealed in His Word. It is not a matter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a childlike spirit which is needed, in order to understand this doctrine of Sovereign Reprobation.

John MacArthur, Jr., an Arminian in Calvinist Clothing!

John MacArthur, Jr., an Arminian in Calvinist Clothing!

Let me say right up front that I am not posting this write up because of any personal grudge or animosity towards John MacArthur, Jr., But lately I have come across many Reformed websites which are providing links to MacArthur and portraying him as a Reformed Calvinist! This not only grieves my heart but upsets my spirit. It is not what the man himself claims to be or what the people believe him to be, but what he really preaches that betrays his true identity.

MacArthur’s denial of Total Depravity!

MacArthur says, “I believe in volition (free will). I believe, anybody who wants to anytime, can come to Jesus Christ and receive Him as Saviour” (Tapes- GC 2001; GC 45-73). The reader should bear in mind that MacArthur is not an ignorant or misguided preacher who preaches heresy for a lack of instruction. No, no. MacArthur is a well read hypocrite who constantly quotes from faithful Calvinist and Puritan writers whenever it suits his purpose. But like his Arminian ‘brethren’ he hates the doctrines of grace and the absolute sovereignty of God and has therefore corrupted the word of God and changed the truth of God into a lie.
When preaching to the unsaved, Arminians often draw an analogy between God’s sending of the Gospel to the sinner, and a sick man in bed, with some healing medicine on a table by his side: all he needs to do is to reach forth his hand and take it. It is interesting to note that John MacArthur, as a true Arminian uses this very analogy in trying to prove that God has done all that He can and now it is up to mankind to appropriate it and be saved. [GC 54-13].

MacArthur teaches that fallen sinful man who is dead in trespasses and sins has the potency or ability whereby he can comply to the demands of God. Listen to his own words : “The God of the Bible is not a God who makes demands on impotent people who are unable to comply and then crushing them because of their non-compliance.” [GC 50-21]. Beloved, this is the great Arminian heresy. It directly repudiates the doctrine of Total Depravity and the Bible which teaches that “the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be [Rom. 8: 7].”

Concerning the teaching on Total Depravity, the Roman Catholic Church warns—”If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s free-will is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the church; let such an one be accursed”! Hence we see, though MacArthur avows to dissent from the teachings of Rome, at least in this aspect he walks hand in hand with them.

MacArthur’s perversion of ‘Unconditional Election”!

MacArthur pretends to hold and teach unconditional election, but he only uses this doctrine whenever it suits him and does not believe it in the biblical way. The election he teaches is not an unconditional election but a conditional one. It is based on the condition that men choose God. His own words are “God does not save them whether they like it or not, He will not save them against their will. He does not universally save all men, because he does not violate their choice”. (GC: 54-13).

MacArthur’s view of election is nothing but God choosing those who choose Him, which is not properly election. If man’s will is the ultimate factor in his choice between believing and not believing in Jesus, then it is rather absurd to go on talking about unconditional election. However, some people do, indeed, indulge in such absurdity. According to them election is nothing but God’s choice of those whom He foresaw would believe. This is a contradiction of terms, for if God chooses those who choose Him, it is not God’s election of man but man’s election of God.
Commenting on the verse, “Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated” MacArthur erroneously teaches that the decree is on their posterity and not on Jacob and Esau themselves (se his commentary on Romans).

MacArthur’s perversion of ‘Sovereign Reprobation’

The Bible explicitly teaches an election unto damnation as surely as it teaches an election unto salvation. Sadly, even many professing Calvinists who fervently uphold and teach the doctrine of election either ignore or outrightly deny the doctrine of Reprobation.

John MacArthur, Jr., not only ignores the doctrine of reprobation but at times out rightly denies it. To quote his own words “You’ll never find any place in the Bible that God sends people to hell, you’ll never find any place in the Bible that God damns people. If men choose to go to hell, they go there because they pronounce their own sentence in rejecting Jesus Christ” (Tape GC 1746). Well, that is true, but it is only a part of the truth. It is the truth from the human side. But there is a divine side too, and this side of the truth needs to be stressed or God will be robbed of His glory.

Again MacArthur says, “MacArthur, “Those who perish and go to hell, go because they are depraved and worthy only of hell and have rejected the only remedy, Jesus Christ; not because they were created for hell and predetermined to go there.”( MacArthur Commentary Bible on 2Pt 3:9)

Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declared “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” [I Thess. 5:9]. MacArthur deliberately misinterprets the plain truth of this scripture by saying “May I mention that their disobedience is not destined, their unbelief is not destined or appointed, their doom is appointed because of their unbelief.” [ Tape GC 60-20]

MacArthur’s perversion of ‘Limited Atonement’

MacArthur outrightly rejects and refutes this doctrine. He flatly states “I believe in an unlimited atonement” (Tape GC1514). And again “Jesus Christ in His death purposed to die as a substitute for every man” (Tape GC 1606). And again, “Since Christ gave His life a ransom for all men, and God wants all men saved, we need to pray for all men.” (Tape GC 54-11).

Having rejected the Biblical teaching of Limited Atonement, MacArthur has no choice left but to hold and teach erroneous views of the Atonement. According to him “Jesus Christ made a sufficient sacrifice to cover every sin of everyone who believes. Out of all humanity, only those who believe will be saved” (MacArthurs commentary on Titus 2;11). And again, “(Jesus Christ) tasted death for everyone – everyone who believes that is” (Commentary on Heb 2:9) . All through his teaching MacArthur sickeningly substitutes the word ‘believer’ where the word ‘elect’ or ‘called’ ought to be used, and such manipulation is employed in order to remove the offense of the Gospel. For ‘believer’ implies any ‘Tom, Dick or Harry’ who believes of his own so-called free will, where as ‘elect’ means only those whom God hath chosen as opposed to the majority He hath not chosen i.e., the ‘non elect’. But plainly speaking his theology of the Atonement is reduced to this. “If the sinner believes, then Christ died for him; if the sinner does not believe, then Christ did not die for him; thus the sinner’s act is made the cause of its own object, as though his believing would make that to be which otherwise was not. To such insane absurdities are the opposers of grace driven” [Pink- The Satisfaction of Christ].

MacArthur’s perversion of ‘Irresistible Grace’

MacArthur is so thoroughly convinced on the doctrine of Free will, that it pervades and influences every aspect of his theology. He denies that there is any persuasion from God in the salvation of sinners. He says “God does not save them whether they like it or not, He will not save them against their will”. Again “He does not save universally all men, because he does not violate their choice”. And again “Some people are judged and go to hell because, God’s desire, for men to be saved is not always man’s desire, and God will not ignore the volition of man” (GC:54-13) And again in the same sermon – “The greatest single proof that God wanted to save all men was the death on Jesus Christ on behalf of all men.” (Tape GC 54-13).
MacArthur’s inconsistency on the ‘Perseverance of the saints’

Unlike his Arminian counterparts MacArthur holds and teaches the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. This would have been commendable had he faithfully preached all the five points of the Reformed Faith as they are taught in the Word of God rather than preach what seemed more agreeable to his feelings and plausible to his understanding. In modifying and denying the harsher and controversial doctrines of Calvinism he has developed a theology that is inconsistent and contradictory. Having denied the doctrine of ‘Total Depravity’ and ‘Limited Atonement’ his illustrious and profound teachings on the ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ amounts to nothing but sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.

It is a contradiction to contend for the free-will of fallen man and yet at the same time the eternal security of the believer. They both cannot be true. Jesus taught that our will is determined by our nature. He said “Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” [Mt 7:17,18]. The tree is not free to produce good or bad fruit at random but is governed by its nature. But, if according to the Arminian, the fallen, depraved sinner is free to choose God and holiness against his nature, then there can be no guarantee that the believer who has partaken of the Divine nature will cease to choose that which is evil in the life to come. In fact a person whose will is “free” would be a dangerous associate even in heaven; for his acts would be irrational and we would have no way of knowing what he might do under any conditions. That which guarantees the permanence of the states of the saved and the lost in the next world, is the fact that volition’s are a true expression of the person’s nature. The born-again child of God will forever continue to choose that which is holy and good because his nature (heart) has been changed and God has made as it were the tree good and its fruit good’ [Matt.12:33]. Whereas the wicked, after the restraining influences of the Holy Spirit are withdrawn, become bold, defiant, blasphemous, and sin with an irremediable obstinacy. “Only the Calvinistic principle that the will is determined by the nature of the person and the inducements presented, reaches a conclusion in harmony with that of Scripture which affirms that “there is a great gulf fixed”, so that none can pass over, — that the states of the saved and the lost alike are permanent.” [Lorraine Boettner ]

Again, it is a contradiction to speak of an Unlimited Atonement saying, “Jesus Christ in His death purposed to die as a substitute for everyman” ( Tape GC 1606) and at the same time contend for the eternal security of the believer. For if Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing that can keep anyone out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in that awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought!!

MacArthur’s deliberate Scripture twisting

“Jacob have I loved Esau have I hated” [Rom. 9:13].
Consider his commentary on this verse: “With regard to Esau, I say, nowhere in Genesis does it say that God hated Esau, it doesn’t say anywhere that he hated Esau. It was only after Esau had chosen sin and abandoned God, for many many years, over a thousand years, before God would look back and say “Esau have I hated”. By that time it was clear to all where Esau stood. So once the sinner is inexorably, and finally identified with his sin, then the sinner feels the hatred of God.( Tape GC-70-11).

This perversion of God’s truth regarding reprobation fully satisfies the unregenerate multitudes who gather around MacArthur’s teaching, for there is nothing offensive about God hating a man after he has lived out his sinful life. But the scriptures under consideration do not teach that God hated Esau after he had chosen sin and abandoned God. But what saith it? “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9:11]. Beloved, this is one of the most offensive and hated truths revealed in the Word of God i.e. that God loves or hates a man before he comes into the world. And because this truth of God’s sovereignty in regards to election and reprobation are so offensive to the carnal mind, the Holy Ghost through the apostle has heaped one expression upon another throughout Romans 9 to establish this truth. The whole ground of preference in regards to election or reprobation is not in man, but in Him who of the same (unfallen) lump maketh one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor; and hath mercy on whom He will and hardeneth whom He will.

So beloved, do not go by what the preacher claims he believes or what the people believe him to be. You be like the Bereans and examine the man’s preaching and compare it with the Scriptures to see ‘whether these things be so!”

Christ’s Atonement Sufficient for All but efficient for the Elect?

Christ’s Atonement Sufficient for All but efficient for the Elect?

 Want to know my view on the statement that is prevalent in many Reformed circles on the Atonement which says- “Christ’s death was of infinite worth and is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect”. I am personally convinced that this statement is dabbling with Amyraldian speculation. We know that Amyraldius attempted to fuse together the Arminian tenant that Christ died for all, while holding to part of the Calvinistic tenant that Christ died only for the elect.

In trying to relay information to the public at large as gracious as possible, the Synod of Dordt, one of the most respected councils in the history of the church, said this:  “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” Don’t you think this is erroneous? Nothing wrong in saying, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value.” But to say, “abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” is an Arminian statement, don’t you think?

Many Calvinist’s hold that if God desired, He could have saved everyone, and the same atonement that saved His elect, could have saved a million billion worlds – hypothetically speaking of course.  But here is the rub; the Scriptures never speak hypothetically in this way – ever.  Instead, they always speak of what Christ did do and what Christ accomplished.  For example, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  This is what Christ did.  A pondering god on what “might have been” or what “might be” is not at all-sovereign, and all knowledge God.  God speak in terms of reality, not possibility.  He operates in the realm of the actual, not the realm of “what if?”

To say that the atonement is of infinite value or worth is to correctly describe it biblically speaking.  I agree with that sentiment because of the design and nature of what the atonement had to be to redeem an elect number of people for their sin.  The atonement of Jesus Christ is of infinite worth, and must be of infinite worth, because it is a propitiation and expiation of the elect’s sin before the infinite holiness of an infinitely holy God.  God’s character defines the kind of sin offering that must be given.  God is infinitely holy.  Men have sinned against an infinitely holy God.  The sacrifice, then, of the Mediator that God sends, must be infinitely given – an infinite sacrifice.  For this reason alone, the Mediator must be God for only God is infinite.  We know, Scripturally, Jesus Christ is God incarnate.  Only God could offer up to Himself an infinitely holy sacrifice for sin.

To say the atonement of Jesus Christ is “sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect” is really saying only half a truth.  The atonement is only sufficient and efficient for the elect.  It is sufficient to do exactly what God designed it to do – that is – atone for all the sins of the elect.  Could God have decreed something different?  Let’s speculate!  Sure He could have.  He could have decreed that trees grow upside down, that men are born with wings to fly around and live in giant green pea-pods that float in the sky.  He could have decreed that all fish breath air, and that the ocean is really made of strawberry jelly.  He could have decreed that we see with our nose, smell with our ears, and see with our toes. He could have decreed that Christ’s sacrifice could save everyone, including a million billion worlds.  He could have decreed anything.  But He decreed what He did decree.  As you can see, to speak otherwise is just to speculate, and speculating can become very weird very quickly.  Instead, why not simply follow the biblical directives of what Christ actually did, and what He actually accomplished in His infinite sacrifice which had to be infinite for the infinite sins against an infinitely holy God.  And mind you, the Bible never depicts God as the one who speculates in hypothetical possibilities, and thus, neither should we. 

[paraphrased from an article by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon titled “Jesus died for Aliens on Planet Zeno”. Read the full article on www.apuritansmind.com]

Is the gospel that saves Arminian or Calvinistic?

Is the gospel that saves Arminian or Calvinistic?

 There are a few Calvinists out there who having a zeal without knowledge insist that unless a man understands and believes the gospel in the Calvinist way, why he just can’t be saved. Is this true?

 What is the True ‘Gospel’? Here is the Apostles’ definition of it –

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures! [1Cor15:1-4]

This according to the Apostle is the ‘Gospel’! Anyone who tries to read ‘Calvinism’ or ‘Arminianism’ in the above greatly errs and tries to read into it something that is not there!
Again, “Sirs what must I do to be saved”? And they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”! [Act 16;30,31]

The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. [Rom 10:8-13].

In fact you will not find even a single instance where some Evangelist preached ‘The Five Points of Calvinism’ or ‘Arminianism’ while addressing the lost in the whole of the New Testament! (Search and see).

 Now God saved me in 1986 while I was under an Arminian tent. It was not until many years later that God opened my eyes to Reformed Truths. But whenever I share my testimony, there are times I run into some pharisaical Calvinist who gets mad and says, “no way, you just couldn’t have been saved while you were an Arminian!”

But as sure as Jehovah is on the Throne I know I was! I was saved not because I was an Arminian but in spite of it! You see, I was not some moral brother who was saved from his churchianity and self-righteousness. I was saved straight from under Lucifer’s Altar! I know the enmity that arose between me and the demons I had dabbled with! I immediately experienced the ‘Enmity’ prophesied in Genesis 3:15, not to mention my deliverance from my Heroin Addiction, Alcoholism, and Heavy Metal music! But above all this, there arose an unexplainable and unquenchable love for Jesus and Christians whom I had hated with my guts before my conversion! [See 1Jn 3:14].

So is Calvinism ‘the Gospel’? Calvinism ‘explains’ and ‘defines’ the gospel as the truth is in Jesus! And I would question the salvation of any man who does not by and by understand, comprehend and receive this Truth and contend for it; no matter how well read he may be in the scriptures! That is what it means to ‘grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. [2Pet 3:18]. And ‘the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day [Prov 4:18]. For the Spirit leadeth all the Elect into this Truth of the Sovereignty of God and the utter helplessness of man to save himself or keep himself saved! “And when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them, and they do not have the ‘root of the matter’! God’s Elect will sooner or later cry out with Jonah, “Salvation is of the Lord!” [Jonah 2:9].

So without laboring the point, can a man be saved in an Arminian tent? It is God who saves, and He does so by regenerating and converting His elect wherever He chooses by the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of His Word! And that Word is not the ‘Five point of Calvinism’ or ‘Arminianism’ but the simple truth that Jesus Christ died for sinners, was buried and rose again! If a man has been taught of the Father (as all God’s Elect are [Jn 6:45]) this truth will mean something to him and he will believe it in his heart confess it with his mouth and be saved! Period! Those who deny this greatly err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God! Sheep may sit under false teaching for some time, but before long they will go out searching for the Shepherd’s voice, for they know not the voice of strangers! Anyone who claims to be the Lord’s sheep and lives and dies an Arminian even after being exposed to the truths of Sovereign Grace never was one!

When I speak of the Lord’s sheep still trapped in Arminian Churches, I have in mind Christ’s Lambs and babes in Christ. In no way do I mean the ‘theologians’, ‘reverends’, deacons or ‘Elders’ who have studied and rejected the writings of the ‘Puritans’ and ‘Reformers’. Believe me, these have their reward.

The Lord has made the gates of Heaven as narrow as you can make it, even a ‘needles eye’. Let us not labour to make it any narrower and turn the Reformed Faith into a Cult, saying, “unless you are saved under Reformed preaching, you just cannot be saved.”

As a final thought consider this, if the Lord does not have his sheep in Arminian and other false Churches why would He take the pains to say, “Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” [Rev18:4].

A.W.Pink on John 3:16

Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted, that this verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. “God so loved the world”. Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But “the entire human race,” includes all mankind from Adam till the close of the earth’s history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born. Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Savior came to the earth, lived here “having no hope and without God in the world”, and therefore passed out into an eternity of woe. If God “loved” them, where is the slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares, “Who (God) in times past (from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14:16).

Scripture declares that,

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Romans 1:28).

To Israel God said,

“You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2).

 In view of these plain passages, who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to the future. Read through the book of Revelation, noting especially chapters 8 to 19, where we have described the judgments which will yet be poured out from heaven on this earth. Read of the fearful woes, the frightful plagues, the vials of God’s wrath, which shall be emptied on the wicked. Finally, read the 20th chapter of the Revelation, the great white throne judgment, and see if you can discover there the slightest trace of love. But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, “World means world”. True, but we have shown that “the world” does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that “the world” is used in a general way. When the brethren of Christ said, “Shew Thyself to the world” (John 7:4), did they mean “shew Thyself to all mankind”? When the Pharisees said, “Behold, the world is gone after Him” (John 12:19), did they mean that “all the human family” were flocking after Him? When the apostle wrote, “Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8), did he mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child on the earth? When Revelation 13:3 informs us that “all the world wondered after the beast”, are we to understand that there will be no exceptions? What of the godly Jewish Remnant, who will be slain (Revelation 20:4) rather than submit?

These, and other passages which might be quoted, show that the term “the world” often has a relative rather than an absolute force. Now the first thing to note in connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus—a man who believed that God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that God’s love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to “regions beyond”. In other words, this was Christ’s announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. “God so loved the world”, then, signifies, God’s love is international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen, the term “world” is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. The term “world” in itself is not conclusive. To ascertain who are the objects of God’s love other passages where His love is mentioned must be consulted.

 In 2 Peter 2:5 we read of “the world of the ungodly”. If then, there is a world of the ungodly there must also be a world of the godly. It is the latter who are in view in the passages we shall now briefly consider.

“For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and

giveth life unto the world” (John 6:33).

Now mark it well, Christ did not say, “offereth life unto the world”, but “giveth”. What is the difference between the two terms? This: a thing which is “offered” may be refused, but a thing “given”, necessarily implies its acceptance. If it is not accepted, it is not “given”, it is simply proffered. Here, then, is a scripture that positively states Christ giveth life (spiritual, eternal life) “unto the world.” Now He does not give eternal life to the “world of the ungodly” for they will not have it, they do not want it. Hence, we are obliged to understand the reference in John 6:33 as being to “the world of the godly”, i.e., God’s own people.

One more: in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read, “To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”. What is meant by this is clearly defined in the words immediately following, “not imputing their trespasses unto them”. Here again, “the world” cannot mean “the world of the ungodly”, for their “trespasses” are “imputed” to them, as the judgment of the Great White Throne will yet show. But <470519>2 Corinthians 5:19 plainly teaches there is a “world” which are “reconciled”, reconciled unto God, because their trespasses are not reckoned to their account, having been borne by their Substitute. Who then are they? Only one answer is fairly possible—the world of God’s people!

 In like manner, the “world” in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis, refer to the world of God’s people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God’s love is mentioned limits it to His own people—search and see! The objects of God’s love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ’s love in John 13:1:

“Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end”.

 We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them.

A.W.Pink – God does not love everybody!

One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody, and the very fact that it is so popular with all classes ought to be enough to arouse the suspicions of those who are subject to the Word of Truth. God’s Love toward all His creatures is the fundamental and favorite tenet of Universalists, Unitarians, Theosophists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, Russellites, etc. No matter how a man may live—in open defiance of Heaven, with no concern whatever for his soul’s eternal interests, still less for God’s glory, dying, perhaps with an oath on his lips,—notwithstanding, God loves him, we are told. So widely has this dogma been proclaimed, and so comforting is it to the heart which is at enmity with God, we have little hope of convincing many of their error. That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief. The writings of the church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we believe) be searched in vain for any such concept. Perhaps the late D. L. Moody—captivated by Drummond’s “The Greatest Thing in the World”—did more than anyone else last century to popularize this concept.

 It has been customary to say God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin. But that is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a sinner but sin? Is it not true that his “whole head is sick”, and his “whole heart faint”, and that “from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness” in him? (Isaiah 1:5,6). Is it true that God loves the one who is despising and rejecting His blessed Son? God is Light as well as Love, and therefore His love must be a holy love. To tell the Christ rejector that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience, as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, that the love of God, is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. With the exception of John 3:16, not once in the four Gospels do we read of the Lord Jesus—the perfect Teacher— telling sinners that God loved them! In the book of Acts, which records the evangelistic labors and messages of the apostles, God’s love is never referred to at all! But, when we come to the Epistles, which are addressed to the saints, we have a full presentation of this precious truth—God’s love for His own. Let us seek to rightly divide the Word of God and then we shall not be found taking truths which are addressed to believers and misapplying them to unbelievers. That which sinners need to have brought before them is, the ineffable holiness, the exacting righteousness, the inflexible justice and the terrible wrath of God. Risking the danger of being mis-understood, let us say—and we wish we could say it to every evangelist and preacher in the country—there is far too much presenting of Christ to sinners today (by those sound in the faith), and far too little showing sinners their need of Christ, i.e., their absolutely ruined and lost condition, their imminent and awful danger of suffering the wrath to come, the fearful guilt resting upon them in the sight of God—to present Christ to those who have never been shown their need of Him, seems to us to be guilty of casting pearls before swine.

 If it be true that God loves every member of the human family then why did our Lord tell His disciples, “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father….. If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him” (John 14:21,23)? Why say “he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father” if the Father loves everybody? The same limitation is found in <200817>Proverbs 8:17: “I love them that love Me.” Again; we read, “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity”—not merely the works of iniquity. Here, then, is a flat repudiation of present teaching that, God hates sin but loves the sinner; Scripture says, “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity” (Psalm 5:5)! “God is angry with the wicked every day.” “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God”—not “shall abide,” but even now—”abideth on him” (Psalm 5:5; 7:11, John 3:36). Can God “love” the one on whom His “wrath” abides? Again; is it not evident that the words “The love of God which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:39) mark a limitation, both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Romans 9:13) that God does not love everybody? Again; it is written, “For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s love is restricted to the members of His own family? If He loves all men without exception, then the distinction and limitation here mentioned is quite meaningless. Finally, we would ask, Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is “without variableness or shadow of turning”!

A.W.Pink on ‘How to Discern Churches’!

How am I to ascertain whether or not a company of professing Christians (whether in a church, a Bible Institute or anywhere else) will truly help or hinder me? In this way: Does their teaching and influence make my conscience more tender or more callous? Does it emphasize the loftiness of the holy standard God has set before me and make me realize how far, far short I come of it, or does it make me pleased with myself? Does it foster pride because my head is becoming full of prophecies, dispensations, doctrines, giving me so ‘much more light’ than many have? Or does it foster humiliation and shame because I realize what a sad failure I am in putting into practice the things of God! 

[To Lowell Green June 3 1934]

 I was happy to hear that both you and your father had withdrawn from the ‘churches’, and my earnest counsel now is to go mighty s, lowly [Isa 28;16] before you even think of joining another. Investigate thoroughly, and find out what is going on behind the scenes before you apply. A sound man in the pulpit is no proof the membership is a regenerate and spiritual one!

[To Lowell Green, October 14, 1934]

A.W.Pink on Avoiding ‘Formal Worship’!

As far as we can see, there are no other children of God abroad. Our fellow-passengers are given up to sport, bathing, dancing etc. We have kept quite to ourselves. This morning they held ‘Divine service’, conducted by the captain. Many would be shocked to hear we did not attend and join in thanking the Creator for journeying mercies. But I think you will now understand. We simply could not have fellowship with those who last night drank and danced and this morning went through a ‘form of godliness’. But we did endeavour to worship our gracious Father in the privacy of our own cabin! I have mentioned this to you (and in none other of my letters) to press on you the force of Ephesians 5;11, 2timothy 3:5. It is in just such matters that Christians either miss or enter into God’s best for them. May he graciously deliver you from the fear of man and keep you in that narrow way which alone leads to life.

 [To Lowell Green, September 9, 1934]

A.W.Pink on Hypocritical Singing

With reference to your problem presented by the Baptist minister asking you to ‘lead the singing’ in his Church: First, let me ask you a question: Do you think that if the apostle Paul or John was preaching in Atlanta, to either saved or unsaved, he would have any ‘choir’ or any ‘special’ singing or music? I fully believe it was at this point that that which has most widely ‘quenched’ the Spirit was introduced. Thousands of services open with a thirty-minute sing-song instead of prayer! I am well aware of the fact that if the ‘sing-song’ were now abolished and a prayer meeting substituted the people would not attend, for God will not be mocked with impunity.

 Again modern hymnology has encouraged thousands of people to sing lies. Imagine 500 people – half of whom were at the baseball game on Saturday afternoon, and the movie in the evening – singing on the Sabbath, ‘Oh, how I love Jesus’. How would the officers of that Church regard the preacher if he said, ‘Only truly born-again souls can sing this hymn truthfully, so will the unconverted please not join in singing it’? I know from sad experience, such a preacher soon empties the Church! Again, it opens the door wide for bobbed-haired, face-painted ‘flappers’ to show off in some solo or anthem where they can trill the high notes. And I am not a music hater, but a trained musician, both vocally and instrumentally!

[To Lowell Green, January 23, 1935]

A.W.Pink on praying for the lost!

“Finally, let us point out a striking omission. If all the apostles prayers be read attentively it will be found that in none of them is any place given to that which occupies such prominence in those of Arminians. Not once do we find God asked to save the world or pour out His Spirit on all flesh. The apostles did not so much pray for the conversion of the city in which a particular Christian church was located. In this they confirmed again to the example set them by Christ, “I pray not for the world” said He “but for them which thou hast given Me” [Jn. 17:9]. Should it be objected that the Lord Jesus was there praying only for His immediate apostles or disciples, the answer is that when He extended His prayer beyond them, it was not for the world, but only for His believing people unto the end of time [see v. 20 - 21]. True, the apostle exhorts that prayers “be made for all [classes of] men; for kings, and for that are in authority” [1 Tim 2:1,2] – in which duty many are woefully remiss – yet it is not for their salvation but “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”. We may learn much from the prayers of the apostles.”

[Gleanings from Paul]