John 3:16 and Calvinism

By John Orlando

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

What a glorious passage of Scripture! God reveals His love for the world in the most profound way: He sends His Son into this world that is in complete rebellion to Him to pay the penalty for sins so that any person that believes in Him would be delivered from the penalty of death—eternal torment in hell—and experience everlasting life!

I begin this article this way first, because I believe this is what the Bible plainly teaches, and secondly, because in any discussion of Calvinism, it doesn’t take long before John 3:16 is quoted by non-Calvinists as a seeming proof text that refutes Calvinism. I know firsthand, because I did precisely that before I became a Calvinist. For me, it was like common sense—how could anyone be so ignorant as to accept Calvinism in light of arguably the most popular verse in the Bible?

When non-Calvinists quote that beautiful verse, they believe that they have fired the silver bullet that will slay the terrible monster known as “Calvinism,” and that “bullet” is usually used in conjunction with what they perceive to be the other silver bullets of Matt 23:37-39; 1 Tim 2:3-6; and 2 Pet 3:9. It’s as if by quoting that verse (or verses) they have made Calvinists aware of some seemingly obscure passage of Scripture and that we would immediately slap our foreheads proclaiming something like, “Oh, man! Wow! I never knew that verse was in the Bible. I guess what I thought about what the Bible clearly teaches about God’s absolute sovereignty, man’s radical depravity, and the perfection of Christ’s work of atonement is wrong.” As the opening of this article demonstrates though, Calvinists are quite aware of John 3:16…after all, it is indeed the most quoted, if not the most popular verse in all of Scripture.

Secondly, Calvinists do hold John 3:16 to be an incredibly beautiful and hope filled verse, and what is often overlooked is that the text is speaking about the incredible love of God the Father that He demonstrates by sending His Son to redeem hopeless, God-hating, wrath-deserving rebels. I mention this because so often we tend to either forget or marginalize the work of God the Father in our redemption.

Thirdly, we are not trying to redefine words, nor are we trying to run away from John 3:16. What we are doing is trying to understand John 3:16, and for that matter all of Scripture, apart from a preconceived traditional mindset wherein the verse is forced to teach something that it was never meant to teach and that contradicts other passages of Scripture. In other words, how does our understanding of John 3:16 comport with such passages as Daniel 4:34-35; Matthew 11:25, 13:11; Mark 10:10-12; Romans 8:28-34, Romans 9, Romans 11:7-10; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; Ephesians 1, 1 Peter 1:20-21, etc (not only that, but also how does it comport with passages within the Gospel of John itself, such as John 1:12-13; John 3:5-8; John 6:37; John 8:47; John 17:2-9?).

There have been some non-Calvinists that have completely lost sight of the need to do precisely what I just mentioned. They look to John 3:16 as the be all and end all, and never consider what John 3:16 is actually saying both in its immediate context and in the broader context of the whole Bible.

One author, George Bryson, whom I have never met but have heard speak in a debate with Dr. James White (http://www.aomin.og/) seems to me to be a fine Christian gentleman. Nevertheless, Mr. Bryson really highlights what I am saying here. A few years ago he wrote a book in opposition to Calvinism called “The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting.” On the cover of the book there is a balancing scale with the name of John Calvin on one side, and John 3:16 on the other, with John 3:16 “outweighing” as it were John Calvin (by the way, John Calvin would be the first to say that Scripture “outweighs” him, and he maybe more than any of the Reformers drove people to the text of Scripture!).

Opposing Calvinism is one thing, but to have what can only be described as an outrageous, not to mention over-simplistic approach to these issues is irresponsible and seriously flawed to say the least, not to mention dangerous, because those that are influenced by such argumentation are first of all given the false impression that people become “Calvinists” by blindly and slavishly following John Calvin instead of interacting with Scripture, to include John 3:16, and secondly, they are never forced to deal in a meaningful way with any single text of Scripture, to include, ironically enough, John 3:16. And that doesn’t even take into consideration Mr. Bryson’s many distortions of Calvinism that the reader is subjected to. For those that honestly approach the text though, such argumentation will actually prove to be counterproductive. See for example this testimony from a person who ironically became a Calvinist after reading Mr. Bryson’s book: http://eqdj.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/bryson-and-calvinism-introduction-conclusion/. See also Dr. James White’s most recent critique of an address Mr. Bryson gave to a group of Calvary Chapel pastors in 2003:

http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20061207fta.mp3 http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20061214fta.mp3 http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20061221fta.mp3 http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20070123fta.mp3

Note: I know that non-Calvinists get tired of hearing Calvinists say that they simply do not understand Calvinism, and that they misrepresent Calvinism. Well, unfortunately, the large majority of the critiques of Calvinism over the past few years especially have not only misrepresented Calvinism, but are outright monstrous distortions, and when I read them I can only shake my head in utter disbelief that any person that goes by the name of Christ could be so careless, and even outright malicious, even after they have been told by Calvinists that what they are saying isn’t accurate. I simply do not expect such behavior from professing Christians. So, for you non-Calvinists that are tiring of hearing the charge of misrepresentation, here’s a thought: stop misrepresenting Calvinism, and I promise…we’ll shut up about it. We’d love to have an intellectually honest discussion on the issues with you as brothers and sisters in Christ; is that too much to ask?

As for the picture on the cover of Mr. Bryson’s book, his approach ends up presenting nothing more than a caricature of Calvinism, and worse, it results in a mishandling of the sacred text of Scripture resulting in a faulty view of God, man, and an undermining of key elements that are directly related to the very heart of the Gospel itself. The only thing George Bryson succeeds in proving by putting such an image on the cover of his book (which one would assume he would like for us to take seriously) is that he really does not understand Calvinism, not to mention the incredibly flawed concept of pitting one verse of Scripture over and against other passages of Scripture.

And by the way, Calvinism is not that difficult to figure out. To digress just briefly here, Calvinism simply declares that God is indeed absolutely sovereign and truly does govern all things, to include the choices of men, man is a wicked sinner, Christ made a perfect, full, sufficient, efficient, and actual substitutionary atonement, and the Holy Spirit never fails to apply that perfect work to a multitude of God-hating rebels that no man can number from every part of the world that the Father gave to the Son before time even began, and that Christ will not lose any of His sheep that He was sent to save.

The reason Calvinism becomes “complicated” is because people are not willing to put aside their preconceived theological notions and their preconceived distorted understanding of Calvinism and deal honestly with the facts. Thus, you get people like Mr. Bryson, and worse, Dave Hunt, who only muddy the waters even further, because they present themselves as the authorities on these things, yet, what they present is a complete mangling of Calvinism.

As I remarked here in my article found here http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/baptistscalvinism, in the advancing of their misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Calvinism, they in effect construct an entirely new theological system, and then argue against it. The problem, of course, is that they call the abomination that they create "Calvinism," and well-meaning people that may not know any better have been completely misled concerning the real issues. No wonder people walk away scratching their heads confused! No wonder people walk away thinking that Calvinists are the worse heretics! Not only that, but as I have said before, if I believed what they say I believe, I would never be a Calvinist!

As for Mr. Bryson’s picture of the balancing scale, it is the name of John Calvin on the other side, not Scripture per se. But that also seriously distorts the issues and gives the impression to those that may not know any better that Calvinists, as mentioned before, blindly and slavishly follow and hang on every word Calvin wrote. Nothing could be further from the truth. Calvinists accept the teachings of Calvin only is so far as his teachings are consistent with the Bible (and Calvin himself would have it no other way!), and it is God’s Word that all Calvinists exalt as the sole infallible rule for faith and practice. Calvin is not the grid that we run Scripture through; rather, Scripture is the grid we run Scripture through. Accord to Calvinism, Calvin and every other teacher is secondary to the text of Holy Writ. This is what Calvin and all of the Reformers teach us.

As for Calvin and the other Reformers, they were relentless in their appeal to the Scriptures, and they meticulously built their case first and foremost upon the sure foundation of the infallible and inerrant bedrock of Scripture with a veritable mountain of Scriptural evidence ushered in to support their teachings, particularly on the core matters of the Reformation, which, by the way, is all that “Calvinism” essentially codifies. The simple fact of the matter is that with each step that we move away from the Doctrines of Grace, we take giant leaps toward Rome (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/AugustusToplady%20RoadToRome.htm).

So, if one is going to put John Calvin (and all of the Reformation for that matter) on the kind of scale that Mr. Bryson has devised, they must put all of the Scriptures that Calvin (as well as the other Reformers) appealed to in making his (their) case, and if one does that, one can be assured that there would be far more than one verse on the scale, and those verses would be dealt with exegetically.

I appreciate brother Bryson’s right to disagree with Calvinists on the issues. I listened to him debate Dr. James White, and found Mr. Bryson to be of a genuinely irenic spirit. I just wish that he would exercise more scholarly responsibility and discernment and refrain from employing such misguided argumentation, and that he would also listen to those Calvinists that have told him that there are many errors in his representation of what Calvinists teach (this seems to be a standard for those that decide to object to Calvinism. For some unknown reason, most simply refuse to deal honestly with the facts, and they seem bent on presenting a distorted view of Calvinism and one straw man argument after another. They should realize that they only thing they succeed in doing by such an approach is demonstrate their incompetence, and in some cases, their absolute lack of integrity, Dave Hunt being the example par excellence). By the way, in that debate between George Bryson and James White, the cross-examination period was particularly telling, as Mr. Bryson was incapable of dealing with any of the texts that Dr. White put before him in a consistent manner that was faithful to the text, especially John 6. You can visit Dr. White’s website for more info at http://www.aomin.org/.

I will now move to John 3:16 and provide what I believe is a correct understanding of the text, not according to Calvinistic tradition, but according to the text itself and other texts that shed light on this passage.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

When we come to any passage of Scripture, we must, among other things, keep in mind the audience that the writer is addressing, the purpose of the writing, the nature of what is being spoken of, and we must interpret passages within their context. This is just as important as we come to John 3:16.

The purpose of John’s Gospel is to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God, and that anyone that believes in Him may have eternal life (John 20:21). John also wishes to show the universal implications of this fact. In other words, John, a Jew, is writing his Gospel to demonstrate that Jesus is not just the Messiah of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles, that is, of the entire world. There is no patch of ground on the earth, and no patch of air in space that does not have Jesus Christ as its supreme Lord and Master.

When we come to John 3:16, it seems to me that the two key words in the passage that cause the greatest confusion are the words “world” and “whoever.”

What is meant by the word “world?”

1. When we compare Scripture with Scripture and other uses of this word, we find some very interesting things. Sometimes it simply refers to the earth itself (2 Sam 22:16). Sometimes it refers to creation in general (Acts 17:24). Sometimes it refers to the ungodly system of thought that opposes God (1 John 2:15-17). Sometimes it is used as hyperbole to describe a very large portion of the earth (Rom 1:8). Sometimes it is used to describe a very large portion of people (John 12:19). There may be more ways in which the word is used, but this is enough to demonstrate that the word world is used in many different ways in the Bible and refers to many different things.

This is absolutely critical to understand, because when people come to the word “world” in John 3:16, they simply assume that it is referring to every single person that ever has or ever will live. So, John 3:16 would in effect say:

“God so loved every single person that ever has or ever will live, that He gave His only begotten Son, that every single person that ever has or ever will live that believes might not perish, but have everlasting life.”

First, I can’t think of any place in Scripture where the word “world” is used to refer to such a concept. But even if there were, we must ask, is this the point that Jesus is making in this statement? I believe that upon examination of this verse in its immediate context, as well as the context of other passages in John and the rest of the Bible, this text is communicating something different.

Now, I know this is a very emotional thing, so, for those that disagree, all I ask is that you fairly consider my comments without dismissing them out of hand. Not only that, you may even be surprised to find that even if we granted such a rendering of John 3:16, it still would not contradict the sovereignty of God in salvation as taught in TUILIP (see my handling of this a bit later). For now though, and once again, we must resist taking our own presupposed meaning or understanding of a word and placing it upon the text without ever letting the document itself inform our understanding of what the word meant to the writer(s).

2. We must ensure that our understanding of the text does not contradict other texts. Particularly as it relates to the writings of the Apostle John, and when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we begin to get an idea of what John means. When we look just at John 3:16, we note that it is stated in a larger context. Look at the verses preceding John 3:16. Jesus has been talking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee no less, and Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be born again if he is to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus is confused and wonders how that is possible—is a person to re-enter his mother’s womb and be born all over again (John 3:4). Jesus is stunned that a teacher of Israel wouldn’t understand so simple and basic a concept, and explains to our inquiring friend Nicodemus, “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3:6). Jesus then goes on to draw an analogy that demonstrates the sovereignty of the act by likening the experience of being born again to the moving of wind. No one knows where the wind is going to blow, and we certainly have no control over where it blows, how hard it blows, etc. The wind is sovereign. We have no control over it. This is how it is for those born of the Spirit. The Spirit of God is sovereign, and He brings to spiritual life to any one He so chooses, and no one, to include the individual that becomes born again, has control over it. This is why we say that the one that is born again is born from above, or “born of the Spirit.” It is heavenly, spiritual, and sovereign, not earthly, fleshly, and within man’s power. Matthew Henry, with reference to Jesus’ use of the analogy of the wind to describe the born again experience notes:

“1. That the Spirit, in regeneration, works arbitrarily, and as a free agent. The wind bloweth where it listeth for us, and does not attend our order, nor is subject to our command. God directs it; it fulfils his word, Ps 148:8. The Spirit dispenses his influences where, and when, on whom, and in what measure and degree, he pleases, dividing to every man severally as he will, 1 Cor 12:11.

2. That he works powerfully, and with evident effects: Thou hearest the sound thereof; though its causes are hidden, its effects are manifest. When the soul is brought to mourn for sin, to groan under the burden of corruption, to breathe after Christ, to cry Abba-Father, then we hear the sound of the Spirit, we find he is at work, as Acts 9:11, Behold he prayeth.

3. That he works mysteriously, and in secret hidden ways: Thou canst not tell whence it comes, nor whither it goes. How it gathers and how it spends its strength is a riddle to us; so the manner and methods of the Spirit's working are a mystery. Which way went the Spirit? 1 Kings 22:24. See Eccl 11:5, and compare it with Ps 139:14.”

This is in perfect accord with what John tells us in John 1:13, where he says that the ones that receive Christ and believe in His name are those “who were born, not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Please don’t miss what is being said there. It does not say that receiving Christ results in one becoming born again. It states that only those that are born of God receive Him. The ones that receive Christ do so not because of the will of their flesh, but because they are born of God…only those that are born of God will receive Christ. That is precisely what Calvinism affirms in the teaching of Irresistible Grace (the “I” of TULIP), and what the non-Calvinistic position denies.

Hence, when we come to John 3:16 we must not lose sight of this, as well as the numerous other texts just in the Gospel of John that inform us that the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63), and that God’s work in redemption is sovereign so that only those that the Father has given to Jesus will come to Him (John 6:37-65; John 10:11-30). Whatever understanding of John 3:16 we have must be consistent with those others truths. When we consider the full context of John 3:16, and the other texts that come after it, both in the Gospel of John and in other places, what we discover is that Scripture never loses sight both of the universal nature of the Gospel (it goes all over the world; to every creature; to people from every nation, tribe and tongue), and the particular application of that Gospel (only the elect will respond savingly to it as they are sovereignly brought to saving faith and repentance). As a matter of fact, that truth is brought out even more when we consider the Greek text of John 3:16, particularly as it relates to the word “whosoever.” I will address that a bit later.

3. Given the facts that we have uncovered, it seems quite clear that when Jesus says that “God so loved the world,” He is speaking in general, not particular terms, about humanity at large. In other words, in an intensely Judeo-centric (Jewish-centered) culture that believed that God’s redemptive purposes extended to the Jews only, Jesus now shatters that idea by saying that God loves the world. In other words, God’s redemptive love doesn’t merely extend to the Jewish nation, but it extends to people from every nation, tribe, and tongue (see Revelation 5:9. John's wording there is what he has in view with the word "world." It is a general term used to describe all people without distinciton, i.e, all people groups...people from every nation, tribe and tongue). It was because of this love for people from every nation, tribe, and tongue that God sent His Son into the world, and any person (whosoever) within every nation, tribe, and tongue that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. Hence we could better paraphrase John 3:16 as "God so loved people from every nation, tribe and tongue, that He sent His only begotten son, so that any person within every nation, tribe and tongue that believes Him might not perish but have everlasting life." Such an understanding is in keeping with the way John has used the word world when referring to people throughout the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, and prevents us from causing John 3:16 to contradict other passages.

Simply put, John 3:16 simply does not deal with details and specifics; rather, it is a broad-brush, general statement that tells us about the scope of God’s redemptive plan and purpose: it is worldwide; and how that redemption is brought to pass: by the giving of the Son; and how that redemption is received: by believing in Christ. This passage in no way contradicts the Bible’s teaching on Divine election and predestination.

What is meant by the word “whosoever”?

First, I have no problem with the word “whosoever,” and as I pointed out, it does no violence whatsoever to the truths contained in the 5 points of Calvinism. Contrary to those that misrepresent Calvinism, either out of ignorance, or just a sheer malicious intent to purposely lie and distort the facts as seen in such people as Ergun and Emir Caner and Dave Hunt (see my article here http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/nodebate), Calvinism unquestionably and unwaveringly affirms the general call of the Gospel that is to go out to every creature.
Be that is it may, as noted above, it should be noted that the word “whosoever” is not found in the Greek text of John 3:16. Instead, as Dr. James Whites points out, the Greek literally translated says, “the one(s) believing in…” In other words, a more literal rendering of John 3:16 is, “For God so loved the world…that the one(s) believing in Him should not perish…” Phrased this way seems, at the very least, to blunt the traditional non-Calvinistic understanding of the passage, because it even more clearly particularizes the text in the mind of the reader, making it more clear (at least in my mind) that Christ was sent into the world specifically for those that would believe (which, regardless of whether one holds to a non-Calvinistic view, or a Calvinistic view, can only be the elect). For a complete take and far more in-depth exegetical analysis of what I just said with reference to John 3:16, I encourage the reader to check out James White’s comments on John 3:16 in his open letter to Dave Hunt. I have lifted that particular portion of the letter and provide it here: http://www/geocities.com/johnandursula/john316white . The full letter can be found here: http://www.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html.

On a side note, I would also point out that regardless of what one believes with regard to the question of Calvinism, how can anyone that affirms the omniscience of God seriously dispute that Christ was sent into the world specifically for those that would believe? Are we really to believe that Christ was sent into the world for those that would not believe, having full knowledge that they would not believe? Just think about it.

Again, I personally have no problem with using the word “whosoever” in John 3:16—it still does not contradict the numerous other passages in the Gospel of John, and the whole Bible for that matter that speak of God’s sovereignty in salvation. My only point is that if one were to be entirely faithful to the Greek text, the word whosoever is not found, and if John 3:16 were translated literally, it would seem to seriously undermine the traditional and superficial non-Calvinistic understanding of the text. You see, when the non-Calvinists reads John 3:16 with the word “whosoever,” they then take that to mean all people without exception have the moral ability to believe in Christ, and that Christ made an atonement for all men without exception. They take that one word “whosoever” and read their traditions into it, and cause it in the end to say something that it was never meant to say. When they do this, they cause John 3:16 to conflict with and/or contradict scores of other Scriptural passages and theological truths. I believe that this could be prevented if the Greek text were literally translated as “the one(s) believing” instead of whosoever believes. But again, if we keep the word “whosoever,” the passage still only references a particular group (whosoever believes), and in no way contradicts Jesus’ teaching in such places as John 6:37, 44, etc.

Granting the Non-Calvinistic Interpretation

Now, let’s do something radical. Suppose I grant to my non-Calvinistic brethren that their interpretation is correct. Let suppose that John 3:16 really could be paraphrased to say:
“God so loved every single person that ever has or ever will live, that He gave His only begotten Son, that every single person that ever has or ever will live that believes in Him might not perish, but have everlasting life.”

What have we proven with such a rendering in that it contradicts the Bible’s clear and explicit teaching on God’s sovereignty of salvation as codified in TULIP? Answer: absolutely nothing! So long as we do not read our traditions into the text, the only thing that such an interpretation proves is that God, in common grace, has a general love for all of mankind without exception, and that He calls all without exception to believe in Christ on the basis of Christ’s work for salvation. Calvinists do not disagree with that! Calvinists affirm that God appeals to all men without exception to turn from their sins and experience eternal life on the basis of the finished work of Christ. This text says nothing about man’s ability to receive the Christ, the nature of grace, and with regard to the atonement, there isn’t even any explicit mention of it—the text says God gave His only begotten Son, but doesn’t say anything with reference to what the Son would do specifically. Obviously there is something sacrificial that is strongly implied, and on the basis of other texts we know that John 3:16 is referring to work of Christ. Be advised however, our tendency is to focus on only one part of that work, the atonement. As wonderful and essential as that is, it is not that Jesus only died for us, it is that He also lived for us. God requires from all of us nothing less than absolute perfect obedience to the law of God in word, thought, and deed, and in light of our utter failure, Jesus, the Second Adam, accomplishes what we never could; the perfect obedience to the law of God in word, thought and deed on our behalf. When we by faith take hold of Christ, we are declared righteous by virtue of having the perfect righteousness and obedience of Christ imputed to us.

Given the fact that there is no direct or extended teaching on the atonement in this verse, it would be unwise then to build any doctrine of the atonement on the basis of this verse. The most we could say on the basis of this text is that if anyone is to be saved, it is solely owing to the perfect work of Christ.

Thus, such an understanding of John 3:16 still doesn’t contradict the numerous passages that speak of God’s sovereign election of whosever He determined to choose in Christ before the foundation of the world. It would still be just a general statement about God’s revealed will to every single person that ever has or ever will live; namely, that they turn from their sins and follow Christ. In that sense, the verse is just a bare statement (in the sense that it is not intended to explore the full scope of the redemptive purposes of God) concerning the general call that goes out to all people without exception. Passages such as this (other examples: John 11:25-26, Rom 10:9-10, Rev 21:6, Rev 22:17, etc.) simply affirm that any person may be saved if they believe, and Calvinism has always and emphatically maintained that.

Non-Calvinists wrongly think and assert that Calvinists deny this, but this is simply false; once again, every Calvinist wholeheartedly agrees that any person (whosoever) may be saved if they believe, and that the Gospel is to be preached and salvation offered to every single person on the planet. The Calvinist simply asserts with Scripture that only those that were given to Jesus by the Father will come to Him (John 6:37). Each and every person should be given the opportunity to respond to the Gospel, but only the elect will respond savingly to the free offer (Acts 13:48, “…And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”).

By the way, even the non-Calvinist must acknowledge as much, for even they believe that God infallibly knows who will and who will not receive Christ. Thus, the only ones that will respond savingly to the free offer of the Gospel are those that God infallibly knows will do so. The key difference then between the non-Calvinist and the Calvinist is the reason one person responds, and the other does not. The non-Calvinist points to something good in man (he “cooperated” with God’s grace and it was his “free will” decision that made the difference), while the Calvinist points to something good in God (God’s grace overcomes the sinners willful rejection of Christ, and enables and ensures that the sinner will freely choose Christ).

We do not know the identity of the elect (or, of those that God infallibly knows will believe); that is God’s business. We, along with our non-Calvinist brothers and sisters, simply go and compel the lost—all of the lost—to come to the rivers of living water; every man, woman, boy and girl; and tell them that today is the day of salvation, receive the Lord Jesus Christ now and His free gift of eternal life!

While I think that the interpretation of John 3:16 that I provided has more exegetical warrant than other interpretations I have read, I nevertheless have no problem saying that God so loved each and every one of them (man, woman, boy and girl) that if they believe, they shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Again though, this love is a “common grace” love. The kind of love that God has for unbelievers differs from the kind of love that He has for His people in much the same way that the kind of love that I have for my neighbor differs from the kind of love that I have for my wife. This is important to remember when we approach other passages such as Matt 11:25-30, John 6:37-65, John 8:31-47, John 11:49-52, John 12:37-41, Rom 8:28-34, Rom 9:10-29, 1 Cor 1:26-31, Eph 1:3-6, 2 Thes 2:13, 2 Tim 1:9, etc., etc. Those that object to such a distinction (between God’s common grace love for all without exception and His redemptive love that is reserved for only His sheep) do not allow the same freedom to God that we humans have, namely, the ability to make distinctions in our relationships. Even a careless reading of Scripture reveals that God’s love for His people is of an entirely different nature than the love He has for the unbeliever.

Conclusion

John 3:16 is indeed a tremendous and amazing passage of Scripture; however, it is not all of Scripture (as George Bryson seems to think), and as with all texts, great care must given when rendering an interpretation of this text that does not undermine and/or contradict other passages of the Bible.

Calvinists are not ignoring John 3:16, and they are certainly not trying to “redefine” words or the meaning of John 3:16. We are simply trying to be good students of God’s Word and put our humanistic and traditional “glasses” aside and interpret Scripture with Scripture, and allow the text itself to determine what is meant by a word(s). A great irony here is that while I do believe that the interpretation I have offered is valid and indeed correct, if one still does not agree with it, I believe that I have also demonstrated how even taking the most “liberal” of interpretations of John 3:16 still would not refute TULIP. Thus, if one wishes to argue against Calvinism, they will have to go somewhere other than John 3:16 in trying to make their case, not to mention the fact that they will have to offer a valid interpretation of the enormous body of texts that clearly demonstrate the truth of the Calvinistic position (for a sampling of those text, I refer the reader to this: http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/calvinismdefendedcontents.