Romans 9, Predestination & Total Depravity

The following is my response to a paper sent to me by my beloved Calvinist opponent. I have edited this letter to protect his identity. The paper by Paul Fahy is called “Does God Love Everyone?” and can be found on this site:

 

http://members.tripod.co.uk/paulfahy/understanding.htm

 

NOTE: It has come to my attention that this link is no good. I have not been able to find Fahey's paper anywhere online. If anyone knows where this can be found, please forward me the address and I will post it here. Thanks.

 

Many of the points made in the “John 3:16” section of the paper entitled “Does God Love Everyone?” by Paul Fahy that you sent to me are adequately dealt with by what I’ve already written. Nevertheless, because you sent it to me, I feel compelled to deal specifically, in detail, with the scriptures the author uses. His 1st thesis statement is:

 

I) The word 'world' is used in various senses even in John's gospel:

 

Of course it is – and the correct rendering of the word “world” is determined by its immediate context.

 

a) In Jn 12:19 it says that 'the world has gone after him'. Obviously the Pharisees did not mean every nation but a relatively few people in a country the size of Wales. It does not mean all men here.

 

I agree – and this has nothing to do with John 3:16. See above on inappropriate comparisons.

 

b) Jesus in Jn 17:3-9 says that he does not pray for the world but for those given to him by the Father, i.e. those loved by God are a portion of the human race, not all men. It is obvious that Jesus is praying for those whom God loves. These people are not the world, not all men but those given to Jesus by God.

 

This will take some patience on both our parts to straighten out. The passage in question is too long for me to write out so please refer to your Bible if you aren’t already. I have to go through 3 steps to untangle Fahey's argument, so bear with me, please.

 

Firstly, there is a shift in the subject from verse 5 to verse 6. Can you see that? In verses 1-5 the subject (the one relevant to our discussion, anyway) is – Jesus has been given authority over “all flesh” - that’s everyone in the whole world in all times – So that, Jesus can give eternal life to “all” that the Father has given Him. “All those given” by the Father would be the elect – in totality. Are we still together on this? In verse 6 the subject shifts to - the apostles ONLY. Read verses 6-12. Verse 6: “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave me out of the world…” Verse 12 says, “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which you have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished except the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.” Jesus is obviously referring to the apostles because He says, “While I was with them…” That cannot be said of all the elect. Jesus’ reference to Judas (the son of perdition) further verifies that He is speaking of the Apostles, not the elect.

 

Secondly, Fahy does not perceive the shift in subject from verse 5 to verse 6. He states verses 3-9 as his text. (He wants to include the word “world” in his argument.) This betrays the fact that he does not notice that the subject has changed.

 

Thirdly, when Fahy uses the phrase, “…he does not pray for the world but for those given to him by the Father…” he is referencing 2 different verses. “…he does not pray for the world…” references verse 9 while “…those given to him by the Father…” references verse 2. Those two verses are on opposite sides of the shift in subject that occurs between verse 5 and verse 6. He’s “fitting” 2 verses together in the same sentence that are talking about different things!

 

The word “world” (verse 6 and beyond) refers to everyone in the entire world who is not one of the apostles. From verse 6 on, Jesus is not praying for “all those whom God loves”, i.e. the elect in totality, he is praying for the apostles. In verses 1-5 Jesus is praying for HIMSELF. “Father…glorify your Son…”

 

[NOTE: Subsequent to writing this I have come to consider that the phrase, “…to all whom You have given Him….” In verse 2 refers to the apostles only and NOT the elect in general. If this is the case, then that would mean that there is no shift in subject between verses 5 and 6. This would not change the fact that I disagree with Fahey’s exposition that “those given by the Father” refers to the elect. “Those given by the Father” refers to the Apostles.]

 

SECOND ISSUE: This passage says NOTHING about whom exactly it is that God loves. Fahy says that “those given to Jesus by the Father” (v 2) are a portion of the human race, which I agree with; the text supports that. He then goes on to say, “those whom God loves.” Meaning God loves ONLY the portion of the human race that He gives to Jesus. This passage does not say that. Neither does this passage say that He doesn’t love the other portion, or part of the other portion, or most of the other portion, or what, and so this text cannot be used to “prove” or even support the notion that God loves only the elect. Neither does this passage say that God loves everyone. This passage doesn’t even say that God loves the elect. Again, this passage says NOTHING about whom it is that God loves.

 

Fahy’s exposition of this passage is a blatant example of reading doctrine into the scripture instead of the other way around which results in poor exegesis.

 

c) We are told by John not to love the world (1 Jn 2:15-17) yet Jn 3:16 says that God loves the world. Again it is obvious that the word 'world' refers to two different things. One world God loves, the other is an enemy to the believer and is perishing.

 

I agree with Fahy here that the “world” of John 3:16 is not the “world” of I John 2. The subject matter of I John 2:15ff is not the same as John 3:16. By the way, this passage does not say that God doesn’t love the “world” that is an enemy to the believer. Fahy has a tendency to ruin a good exposition by concluding it with a presuppositional statement that has nothing to do with what the text actually says. For what it’s worth, I think that the word “world” in I John is being used metaphorically. It’s not referring to people per se. Verse 16 plainly states what John is talking about; “…the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life…” “World” in this context could be thought of as, “the way of the world” or “the system of the world” or, as John says, “the things of the world.” I commend Fahy for attending to immediate context here. Would that he paid as much attention to immediate context when he reads John 3:16!

 

d) Furthermore Jn 15:18-21 explains that this world hates believers as it hated Jesus. Believers are not of this world and are chosen by Jesus (v16) out of it. There is a difference between this 'world' and God's people.

 

John 15:18-21 is not saying that this world hates believers. It’s saying that this world hates the apostles. V 26 – “You have been with Me from the beginning.” That can only be said of the apostles. Secondly, in our dialogue concerning cessationism, you expounded at great length to me that this WHOLE discourse is to the apostles only. Specifically in relation to 14:26 (“…bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”) And I agree with you, by the way, (I don’t think I ever told you that) that the immediate context is to the apostles. Yet Fahy is saying that this discourse is referencing all believers. Fahy has allowed his erroneous Calvinist presuppositions to dictate his interpretation of this verse. Even you would not agree with his exegesis of this scripture, would you?

 

I realize that my criticisms of Fahy’s interpretations of the above (and below) scriptures are really beside the point relevant to our discussion. My criticisms are relevant to Fahy’s main thesis (Does God Love Everyone?) However, that thesis is beyond what we are dealing with here. But relating to our discussion (John 3:16) my criticism demonstrates how incorrect presuppositions blind one to immediate context. Fahy’s point has been to demonstrate that the term “world” is used in different ways in different places. I agree with him on that. My response is, “So how does this support the notion that “world” in John 3:16 refers only to believers, and not the whole world?” Fahy has established that “world” can mean different things in different scriptures - thereby weakening any “comparisons” and giving strength to my position that a scripture should be interpreted based on its immediate context and should generally not be interpreted in terms of other scriptures, and never at the expense of the immediate context.

 

e) Jn 1:29 Christ did not take away the sins of the whole world or all men would be saved. The context and analogy of scripture must be applied to understand each reference of the word 'world'.

 

This is another blatant example of reading doctrine into the text instead of letting the text mean what it clearly says. His argument, “Christ did not take away the sins of the whole world or all men would be saved” presupposes Irresistible Grace and Limited Atonement, which he then reads into this text.

 

Furthermore, in this verse, John the Baptist says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. Again, in verse 35 he says, “Behold the Lamb of God.” Now this is a valid comparison! It’s a comparison that is given in the text itself. I’m going to assume you understand some of the depth of what this references, I would be very surprised if you don’t.

 

On the Day of Atonement the sacrificial lamb took away all the sins of all Israel for the year. However, the sinlessness of the people was contingent on their obedience. Leviticus 26:14-33 begins with this; “But if you do not obey Me…” Then through the next 19 verses is described a process where progressive disobedience is punished incrementally. The Lord does not cut off the person immediately but goes through a process that gives the disobedient one every opportunity to turn and be restored. The Lord’s behavior here presupposes that the disobedient one has the power to choose. Eventually, if the disobedience continues, even though the lamb had been slain, a person could disqualify himself from the sacrificial provision by disobedience and be lost. So, one is lost for whom the lamb was slain.

 

Likewise, the blood of the Passover Lamb had to be applied by the individual to the doorpost and lintel or the “salvation” that had been provided wouldn’t work for that individual. If God does it all because man is totally depraved, God would have applied the blood, because man can’t.

 

Another idea being implied here - and the one that I think is foremost in the mind of John (both of them) - is that the “Lamb” of the Old Covenant took away the sins of Israel, but this “Lamb” takes away the sin of the world. All this is part of what John the Baptist was referencing when he “compared” this OT concept to Jesus. There is great depth here. Notice that I swung from super conservative to very expansive when the text itself made the comparison. The comparison was given in the text itself, and so I can be confident that the comparison is valid, and say, “So also it is with the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”

 

I’m sorry, but Mr. Fahy’s erroneous arguments and the misinterpretation of the scriptures he uses actually strengthen what he’s arguing against. He doesn’t want to say that God loves the WHOLE world, even though that’s what John 3:16 says. His subsequent reasoning is based on this 2nd thesis:

 

ii) All that God loves will remain; nothing that God loves can be lost in hell. Since many are condemned to hell, the word 'world' cannot mean all men.

 

“…nothing that God loves can be lost in hell.” This is simply not true. It’s a statement based on a false presupposition. I have shown that the Bible clearly says that there are people who God loves and for whom Jesus died that are, and will be, lost. The word “world” in John 3:16 does indeed mean “all men”. Since Fahy’s presupposition is false, (“…nothing that God loves can be lost in hell.”) all of his subsequent reasoning is invalid.

 

NEXT Section: Total Depravity