John 3:16 and God's love

[Homer]

I have been thinking lately about John 3:16 and God's love. We are familiar with the verse, so familiar that I sometimes think the words "God so loved..." are underappreciated. It seems to me the verse speaks of a love so great that we can not grasp the magnitude of it.

We have two sons. We love them both dearly. If need be I would certainly give my life for either of them if necessary. I would never let one of them die for me; I believe this is normal for parents. And it is inconceivable to me that I could ever give the life of one of my sons for an enemy. But this is what God has done. Not just for those of us who would come to love Him, but also for those who never will. (I realize both Calvinists and universalists will reject this, but I am neither.)

It is said that God's love is diminished if all are not eventually saved. But if either Calvinism or universalism is true, then God gave His Son for only for those who will love Him, some sooner, others later. It seems to me that is less magnanimous, less of a sacrifice on God's part. In either case, God's act of giving is diminished.

[steve7150]

It is said that God's love is diminished if all are not eventually saved. But if either Calvinism or universalism is true, then God gave His Son for only for those who will love Him, some sooner, others later. It seems to me that is less magnanimous, less of a sacrifice on God's part. In either case, God's act of giving is diminished.








I think in the Parable of the Prodigal son we see how joyful God was when the son who was lost for quite some time eventually became found even though it took him hitting bottom to bring him to his senses.
Are not most people in some way like this son in principal. Not that they replicate his exact behavior but most think they can take care of their lives until they come to the end of themselves in one way or the other. Then they think of God. In other parables we see that God seeks every last sheep or coin and when that happens there is great joy in heaven.
So God's will is just that, to save every last soul and i think the verses that sound like CU verses are not limited by inserting the arbitrary word "potentially" but rather are prophetic in nature.
In this age the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers, in the next age he can't. Is it not justice and mercy that people should at least have an opportunity to follow God without being blinded by the devil?

[Paidion]

[God gave His life] not just for those of us who would come to love Him, but also for those who never will.

It seems without purpose that God would give His life for those who he knows will never love Him. What good will it do those people? They will go to hell forever (or be annihilated). Exactly the same thing that would happen to them if God had not given His life for them.

[jarrod]

I really enjoyed the spirit of truth in your post Homer. I often think of Peter's words:



I often pass over passages like John 3:16 because they have been engrained into our memory from youth, but I agree that those words are so great that they can be hard to absorb all that His love brings. I think also as we see the Lord's hand in our life, no matter the circumstance, that great love is made manifest and we can experience God and have testimonies of His faithfulness in our lives.

Regarding the ultimate fate of those who reject the Lord, I believe it is a serious matter that can be debated, but I believe there is strong evidence against "Universalism" and more towards real consequences. That is just my belief though.

~Jarrod

I have been thinking lately about John 3:16 and God's love. We are familiar with the verse, so familiar that I sometimes think the words "God so loved..." are underappreciated. It seems to me the verse speaks of a love so great that we can not grasp the magnitude of it.

We have two sons. We love them both dearly. If need be I would certainly give my life for either of them if necessary. I would never let one of them die for me; I believe this is normal for parents. And it is inconceivable to me that I could ever give the life of one of my sons for an enemy. But this is what God has done. Not just for those of us who would come to love Him, but also for those who never will. (I realize both Calvinists and universalists will reject this, but I am neither.)

It is said that God's love is diminished if all are not eventually saved. But if either Calvinism or universalism is true, then God gave His Son for only for those who will love Him, some sooner, others later. It seems to me that is less magnanimous, less of a sacrifice on God's part. In either case, God's act of giving is diminished.

[steve7150]

Regarding the ultimate fate of those who reject the Lord, I believe it is a serious matter that can be debated, but I believe there is strong evidence against "Universalism" and more towards real consequences. That is just my belief though.









Just for the record Universalism sounds like Unitarianism or many other belief systems that have no Christ.

Christian Universalism believes Christ is Lord and whatever consequences an unbeliever will reap because of what he sowed will be up to Christ as a just judge.
It is not devoid of justice, but many believers feel anything less then eternal punishment for unbelievers is unjust.

[RICHinCHRIST]

John 3:16... seems to me the verse speaks of a love so great that we can not grasp the magnitude of it...

It is precisely this idea which has made me open-minded toward universal reconciliation (along with the scriptural arguments). If God's love is even greater than what we can currently comprehend, I don't see why God couldn't save unrepentant sinners in the afterlife. If the Scriptures are meant to reveal everything that God plans to do with humanity, both saved and lost, in the afterlife, then we aren't left with much to work with. If the height, width, depth and length of God's love is unknowable (Ephesians 3), then perhaps the impossible is possible with God after all.

[mattrose]

I don't think John 3:16 is understood quite rightly... specifically in regards to the word 'so' and how it connects to the word 'love'

It's not 'sooooooo' like a passionate love (eros?)

It is more like "God loved the world like so (in this manner)"

It's agape love, so it is about active care. God loved by sending. He did something about the messed up world's situation.

Not to say God's love isn't amazing, just to say when we treat it like eros love, we (I think) get the wrong picture of what this verse is communicating.

In regards to the 3 views of hell, I'd say it is way more easily used by the eventual extinction camp.

Everlasting misery people have to re-interpret 'perish' from it's normal meaning
Eventual restoration people have to re-interpret and/or misunderstand 'love'
But Eventual extinction people can just take the verse at face value, it seems to me

The Father loved the world in this manner... by sending the son, who became the God-man... uniquely qualified to reconnect the disconnected world to the Father. This reconnection is accessed when individuals from the world put and keep putting their trust in Jesus. Those who don't, perish. But those who keep trusting in Jesus keep living.

[Singalphile]

I didn't understand what you were saying at first, Homer, but I get it now. It would seem to diminish God's act of love if he knew that everyone for whom He gave His Son would eventually "come around". I'm not sure that I agree with that line of thought, but it's interesting.

I also wonder what it means that God "gave" His Son. I've always assumed that to mean that God gave His Son's life (as in, on the cross)... but then God knew that Christ would not remain dead, right? Well, there was also great emotional and physical suffering, though also temporarily, I suppose. Perhaps Jesus, talking about Himself, didn't really have His suffering in mind. I wonder. In any case, praise God!

[mattrose]

I also wonder what it means that God "gave" His Son. I've always assumed that to mean that God gave His Son's life (as in, on the cross)... but then God knew that Christ would not remain dead, right?

I think to best understand the word 'gave' in this verse, we need to start by understanding the word 'world.' 'World' can mean a lot of things, but here I think it refers to messed up humanity. What is messed up about humanity in this verse? They are doomed to perish... they have no eternal life. Why don't they have eternal life? Because they are disconnected from the source of life. How did they get disconnected from the source? The first man, Adam, sinned. So how does God's giving of His Son fix that? By becoming human, Christ became a 2nd Adam. Because he's like us (man), he is connected to us. But he is also like God and connected to God. And so Christ is uniquely qualified to reconnect the world to God (though individuals only access this through believing). Once the world believes, they re-access eternal life.

So God actively cared for the world by giving his son. The giving of his son was exactly what the world needed (possible reconnection to the source of life). It matters not that God knew (or that Jesus knew) that the death wouldn't take. Quite the opposite! They knew it wouldn't. They knew the plan would work. God loved us by doing exactly what was needed.

[Perry]

It seems without purpose that God would give His life for those who he knows will never love Him. What good will it do those people? They will go to hell forever (or be annihilated). Exactly the same thing that would happen to them if God had not given His life for them.

Wasn't that Homer's whole point? That God loved them so much that He was willing to give His Son's life, even in face of the knowledge that it would do no good?

At least that seems to be the point he's making.