Posted on 08/01/2005 8:16:45 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
Does God So Love the World?
by: John MacArthur
Love is the best known but least understood of all God's attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.
All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but not in the way most people think. Because of the influence of modern liberal theology, many suppose that God's love and goodness ultimately nullify His righteousness, justice, and holy wrath. They envision God as a benign heavenly grandfather-tolerant, affable, lenient, permissive, devoid of any real displeasure over sin, who without consideration of His holiness will benignly pass over sin and accept people as they are.
Liberal thinking about God's love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God's wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.
We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God's righteous anger. We need to remember that God's wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.
In that regard, our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don't really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, few people really understand what God's love is all about.
How we address the misconception of the present age is crucial. We must not respond to an overemphasis on divine love by denying that God is love. Our generation's imbalanced view of God cannot be corrected by an equal imbalance in the opposite direction, a very real danger in some circles. I'm deeply concerned about a growing trend I've noticed-particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God's sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.
I am troubled by the tendency of some-often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine-who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.
The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.
Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world…") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2]
Pink was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally. Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7:6-7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4:8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same.
Nothing but God's own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love.
Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.
We must understand that it is God's very nature to love. The reason our Lord commanded us to love our enemies is "in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). Jesus clearly characterized His Father as One who loves even those who purposefully set themselves at enmity against Him.
At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Ephesians 2:4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.
But from that, it does not follow that God's attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred. Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.
Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." [3]
Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.
Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.
We are seeing today, in some circles, an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan eras. I'm very encouraged by that in most respects. A return to those historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.
We must maintain a carefully balanced perspective as we pursue our study of God's love. God's love cannot be isolated from His wrath and vice versa. Nor are His love and wrath in opposition to each other like some mystical yin-yang principle. Both attributes are constant, perfect, without ebb or flow. His wrath coexists with His love; therefore, the two never contradict. Such are the perfections of God that we can never begin to comprehend these things. Above all, we must not set them against one another, as if there were somehow a discrepancy in God.
Both God's wrath and His love work to the same ultimate end-His glory. God is glorified in the condemnation of the wicked; He is glorified in every expression of love for all people without exception; and He is glorified in the particular love He manifests in saving His people.
Expressions of wrath and expressions of love-all are necessary to display God's full glory. We must never ignore any aspect of His character, nor magnify one to the exclusion of another. When we commit those errors, we throw off the biblical balance, distort the true nature of God, and diminish His real glory.
Does God so love the world? Emphatically-yes! Proclaim that truth far and wide, and do so against the backdrop of God's perfect wrath that awaits everyone who does not repent and turn to Christ.
Does the love of God differ in the breadth and depth and manner of its expression? Yes it does. Praise Him for the many manifestations of His love, especially toward the non-elect, and rejoice in the particular manifestation of His saving love for you who believe. God has chosen to display in you the glory of His redeeming grace.
[1]Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1930), 29-30.
[2]Ibid., 314.
[3]John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, William Pringle, trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 reprint), 123.
Adapted from The God Who Loves © 2001 by John MacArthur. All rights reserved.
• Grace to You (Thursday, July 21, 2005)
Brought to you by OnePlace.com.
You are correct that He must necessary have knowledge of the person before He can choose that person. However, you are making two critical errors here:
1. When saying that He "chooses according to His good pleasure" it is meant that He chose as it so pleased Him to choose. That is, He was pleased to make the choice He made. It does NOT necessarily mean that He chose based on some pleasurable attribute of the person. It simply means that it pleased Him to choose as He did.
2. He is not pleased by the object of His choice (that is, in the transitive sense) but rather pleased by the choice itself.
Therefore, it was something in the persons that He knew that either pleased Him or displeased Him.
See above.
I don't think you will find a Weslyan who would disagree with that statement. Indeed no God respecting Weslyan would dare to state that there was any "attribute" within a person that inclined God to choose that person. It is not even the person himself, but what God foresaw IN that person. That being the person of Jesus Christ.
The dilemma that the Calvinist has is that if God chooses without regard to anything in that person and it is not because of foreseen faith, then God is either choosing arbitrarily, or he actually is a respecter of persons.
The Arminian/Weslyan believes that God is a respecter of the One who dwells within his elect and not of the elect themselves.
Isn't it an odd coincidence that He just happened (1) to foreknow each one, and (2) to have been pleased (according to his good pleasure) by only those who were to be believers?
And isn't it a coincidence that the bible says, "those He foreknew He predestined..." and "elect according to the foreknowledge of God..?"
It just works for me, Fru.
"all the wonders He contains within His person(s)."
Amen!
The verse you are quoting says that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Meaning, that forgiveness of sin is only found in Him, and all who would have their sins forgiven must come to Him. That, once again, does not address ability of the sinner to come, it merely states that Jesus is who he must obtain forgiveness from, because there is no other. The sinner's ability to avail himself of this forgiveness is a whole other matter.
Christ is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world
Please show me the verse that states this. Your statement is at odds with your professed Calvinism. By this statement, you make the atonement general and non-specific, where as you ought to know that the Bible teaches that the atonement is particular and specific. It is a Penal Substitutionary atonement, wherein Jesus bore the ACTUAL punishment for SPECFIC sins, and sinners.
What is clear is that God loves even the reprobate, and that Jesus Christ died also for the non-elect.
This statement is in direct contradiction to your professed Calvinism.
Exactly. God was IN CHRIST reconciling the world unto Himself.
From the day I was saved, I have never understood it differently.
FWIW, the freeper name "Jonathan Edwards" appears to be available.
I think it's a more easily understood scriptural argument. Occam's razor, if you will.
That makes no sense.
The Arminian says that first the sinner must invite God to dwell within him, or at the very least make the choice to accept Him. Thus salvation depends upon man's choice, as well as God's offer.
It is not even the person himself, but what God foresaw IN that person. That being the person of Jesus Christ.
By this you are saying God foresees man's good choice to believe in Jesus Christ.
Ultimtely, the question remains why does one man invite/accept Christ into his life and the next man refuse Christ.
So for the Arminian, it always returns to his good choice to believe.
The decisions of God are never "arbitrary" to the Calvinist. But they are His alone, most especially regarding salvation.
We are believers because He gave us faith. And that faith pleases Him.
You guys still insist salvation ultimately depends on your good choice to believe.
I appreciate your attention to detail, friend.
I was contemplating your and xzins inverse substitutionary atonement theory. Interesting dynamic. If I'm following the conceptualization correctly it differs from the traditional substitutionary atonement theory in which Christ is said to cover the sinner. In your theory, or at least how i have conceptualized what you have written, Christ instead "fills" the sinner in a way that God sees the person in their own right as filled by Christ because of their reception of Christ. Have I understood this correctly?
NF: Please show me the verse that states this.
1 Jo. 2:2. In black and white.
This statement is in direct contradiction to your professed Calvinism.
It need not be. The maxim "offered to all, applied to the elect through the Holy Spirit" is Calvinist through and through,, see Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 771 ("The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit."); see also Hodge's Systematic Theology,, Vol. 2, p. 545 ("In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis" sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone.")
Not that I care if you consider me a Calvinist. I have my theological positions, derived from several years of intense study. They happen to be Reformed in character. But, at the end of the day, my loyalty is not to Calvinism, or Presbyterianism, or any other -ism. I am a Christian. That is what matters, not this "I am of Calvin" baloney that goes on on this board.
Can God make a person believe, x?
Did He make you believe?
If He did, why doesn't He make the guy next door believe?
And if He didn't make you believe, then ultimately it was your decision to believe.
No. I am saying nothing more than the fact that the Father forsees his Son in us. Upon that condition (however it is satisfied -- whether by force or by invitation) we are thereby elected unto salvation.
I've maintained that this thread really was about the "when regeneration" question.
(1) Regenerated prior to faith via irresistible grace applied prior to regeneration, or (2) regenerated after faith via prevenient grace applied prior to faith.
Your use of the term "by invitation" refutes and thus negates the "no" which begins your sentence.
So that my statement, "By this you are saying God foresees man's good choice to believe in Jesus Christ" is accurate.
And you put God's salvation into a temporal frame, whereas the names of the elect were known to God from before time, and truly before any "invitations" could be accepted or rejected.
Salvation is God's call, not ours.
Why believe in a weaker prevenient grace when God's sovereign grace can and does accomplish everything it intends?
No. By the step of faith we are covered in his blood AND Christ dwells within us.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)
Not so, Dr E.
I've been told by calvinists that they were not forced by God to believe. They have also told me that God did not believe for them, but that they believed for themselves.
Since no one is saved until they believe, I then asked what caused them to believe. They said it was an overwhelming compulsion.
Therefore, their coming to faith is via an overwhelming compulsion. Those who don't come to faith don't get overwhelmed by that compulsion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.