John 3:17 tells us that God’s intention in sending Jesus was to save the world through Him.
Surely God’s intention was fulfilled. Jesus successfully completed his mission: what he was sent to do, he did. God saved the world through Jesus.
Clearly this does not mean that all individuals without exception are saved. Those who do not believe in the Son will perish (v16). God’s wrath remains on them (v36).
We could say that all manner of people are saved. A great number from every nation will saved. This is undoubtedly true.
Yet the verse seems to make more sense if the vast majority of humankind are eventually saved (as the gospel progresses and more and more people put their trust in Jesus).
And it seems appropriate to this verse that this world should be saved. Jesus’ death is not just about rescuing individuals but about restoring the whole cosmos. The created order will be redeemed. The curse has been drawn. God's plans for the world he made will be fulfilled.
On the great final day we will be able to say that the world has indeed been saved though Jesus.
Posts
8 comments:
Mark, that is a solid postmillennial reading of John 3:16-17. B B Warfield used that sort of reasoning to come up with his "eschatological universalism". Now that all sounds neat, but we are still left with 1 John 2:2, just to pluck out one obvious verse. What does it mean for Jesus to be the propitiation/atoning sacrifice (take your pick) for the sins of the whole world?
Is Jesus' life, death and resurrection for the whole world, or only for some?
The postmillennial answer is better than the amil and premil offerings, but is it truly sufficient?
Quite seriously, evangelical exegesis of the “universal” texts look like “magic” tricks to rest of the Church, for eg., my all time favourite is, “the world means the world of the elect”.
Regards,
Tony
Thanks for that, Tony.
I'm glad to hear I'm agreeing with Warfield!
I find the postmil understanding of 1 Jn 2:2 and other such verse satisfying. The world really is saved, even though some individuals are lost. We could say something like "Britain has drinkable tap water" or "electric light" even if there were / are some dwellings that don't, couldn't we?
Are you suggesting a consistent universalist reading that could take of all the texts that clearly speak of some perishing everlastingsly?
Today as we restarted lunch club we started by thinking about what we'd already learnt about Jesus - what were some of the things he said and did...
One girl, 8, said, "Jesus came to save the world". As she gets older she may start to think about what that means, but for now, the simple truth is there. "Jesus saved the world" :-)
Bit random but I am always encouraged when I see kids learning and stuff...
Hope you and the family are all well :-)
Hi Mark,
I have been a strong Postmillennialist for the past 11 years. I devoured all the postmil stuff, old and modern. As an evangelical, postmil was a way of dealing with these "world" texts, but I am not longer satisfied with the postmil answers.
Your illustration may be helpful and I have certainly relied on it for the past 11 years. Having said that, I am still not yet convinced. Why? Because, I am left wondering if that is the intent of the "universalistic" texts in the New Testament. Are the NT texts using the word "world" in the way that you are using the word "Britian"? Right now I would say that I doubt that they are.
At the least, I am hinting at a consistent universalism. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 keeps popping up, St. Paul says:
"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."
So what of the perishing texts? Good question! I am still working on an answer for that. Can God send people to hell, well of course he can. Does God actually condemn anyone to eternal torment, I doubt it very strongly. God is love! Not a fluffy meaningless understanding of love. God is Love in that he gave his Son for the world, in turn the Son died, and rose again for the sins of the world and is now reconciling the world to himself.
Regards,
Tony
Tony,
What is the future of Satan and his angels? 2 Pet 2:4f. among others suggests it's a negative future.
If Satan at least is destined for Hell, then the principle is established that God's love is compatible with the eternal punishment of sentient, rational beings.
Hi Neil,
I take it that you hold to a literal reading of those passages which speak of Satan falling from heaven, etc? If you answer yes, then how do you determine what you read literally and what you read, let's say, as methaphor or symbolism? Our hermeneutics always bear upon our exegesis, and our doctrine of Scripture bears upon our hermeneutics.
I am by no means pretending to have all the answers. I have been an evangelical for the past 16 years. However, over the last 3-4 years I have been challenged and I am now asking questions (I am sorry if it bothers anybody here, if you want me to stop then please tell me to and I will).
If you have any answers, then I am all ears.
Regards,
Tony
Tony,
I wasn't particularly thinking of Rev 12:9. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it makes a difference if one reads, eg, Rev 20:10 literally or metaphorically. Whether it's an actual lake of fire or not, the point is that Satan/the devil is to undergo conscious punishment for eternity. The same would apply to 2Pet 2:4.
I agree that hermeneutics and exegesis occupy a 2-way street. As I've moved to postmillenialism, I think I've been persuaded that amillenialism has an inconsistent basis on which it "spiritualises" some texts.
Nothing useful to say, other than did you notice that Neil's latest comment was at 3:16 PM? That, surely, proves it is a comment blessed by God...
Post a Comment