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.
The problem now, xzins, is that you are completely avoiding any logical order to those components. Saying He always knew all these things for all eternity effectively ends the argument in a draw because you CANNOT derive causation without order.
Oh that is funny.
The dictionary.
That's not the issue here. Neither is His knowledge of who would believe, or His knowledge of your name, or anything else about you.
The issue is, why did God choose whom He chose, and on what basis, and for what reason did He choose them to salvation?
The answers are really simple: He chose whom He chose because it pleased HIM to choose them, and the reason He chose whom He chose was to the praise of His glory.
The reasons, and the impetus, are within God, and not within the chosen. The chosen did not have an effect on the One choosing, it was the One choosing who had the effect on the ones chosen.
I only have one point. We who are currently "anchored" within this reality we call four dimensional space/time have a tendency to think in terms of causality - cause/effect. But causality itself is part of what God created.
IOW, by pre-existing "all that there is" - He not only is beyond space and time but also causality (and every other physical or phenomenal thing).
It follows that the first cause was Himself, His own will. Likewise, the final cause is Himself, His will.
My two cents - since Jesus, His only begotten Son, is first in everything (Col 1, John 1, etc.), the beginning and the end, and everything is created by Him and for Him (Col 1, Revelation, etc.) - that the Father's will was evidently that He have a family (first cause, final cause). The creation, existence in every sense of the word (spiritual and physical, heaven and earth, etc.) follows to raise up that family, i.e. the new heaven and earth (the effect of the final cause).
Perhaps the Israelis being freed from Egypt can shed some Light on this? Though He already knew that Pharaoh would let them go, the manner in which He had them freed was to reveal Himself in increments evidently so that they would know they are His chosen and make an informed decision whether to believe/trust Him. Likewise, He could have led them straight to the promised land, but instead He brought them time and again to the point of having to make the choice of believing/trusting Him.
He certainly could have manipulated all of their hearts and minds - as He did in hardening Pharaoh’s heart - to "make" a family. Or better yet, He could have created a perfect family from the beginning - skipping the first cause (and effect of this heaven and earth) and moving directly to the final cause (and effect of the new heaven and earth).
That He didn't indicates that He wants all of His family to be comprised of members He chose and who choose Him, love Him and want to be a member of the family no matter the cost.
IOW, causality itself is His will.
Anyway, that's my two cents...
If the reason for His choosing is within Himself, then how do you know why God chooses as He does?
My point is this nobdy: It is not possible that He could have chosen them based on His good pleasure WITHOUT knowing that they were believers. God either knows everything all the time or He does not.
Likewise, God also knew His promises to believers.
Since, He knew His promises to believers, there was no alternative to His choosing them.
Thank you for your thoughts on this subject. As I fit them into the conversation, this is what I understand: God's will is the first and final cause, and that will directed the building of a family of God. As that stands, I have no problem with it. It adds the understanding of purpose (why God was pleased to do this or that) to the discussion.
My only question would remain: If God always knows everything, then was there any time when God did not know His intent, His plans, and their results?
Answering my own question, I cannot see how He could not have know anything, since He is by definition, omniscient.
Ultimately, we can only know in this life which weren't His reasons, i.e. something intrinsic within the object of choosing (man), man's perceived (foreseen) choosing of Him, etc. Once those are eliminated, all that remains is that the reason He chose as He did is within Himself.
I believe that those who have been chosen are comfortable with that, and those who haven't been chosen, don't care anyway. For those who can't accept that God chose them for a reason other than their foreseen faith, they need to remember that it wasn't they who chose God, but God who chose them. They wouldn't have chosen Him unless He had first chosen them.
How do you know what are not His reasons?
What do you mean by something intrinsic within the object of choosing (man), man's perceived (foreseen) choosing of Him, etc?
That is true, but it does not follow that His knowledge of them as believers was the factor used to make the choice. That is what you're getting hung up on. And your problem with it is that you are having a hard time conceiving of a decision being made while knowing all there is to know about the outcome, and yet that outcome not affecting the decision itself. That is the result of viewing the decision itself within a temporal frame of reference, when the decision was not made within that frame, but outside of temporal time. The outcome of the decision plays out in temporal time, but the decision itself was made in eternity.
The things that are impossible with man are possible with God. God made the decision, knowing all the facts, yet those facts did not influence the decision.
The problem remains that you are arguing for a necessary causal relationship between the knowledge that they were believers and His pleasure in choosing them. You are saying He chose them because they were believers, and arguing that it must be so because He necessarily knew they were believers at the time He chose them. What you exclude without addressing though is any notion that He knew they were believers because He knew He brought about their belief. Such a notion cannot be necessarily excluded from the scope of God's knowledge.
You got something better?
The reason it had to have been at a minimum partly due to the belief is that God also knew then the promises He would have made to believers. "He who believes has life" "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish.." etc.
There was no option OTHER than accepting the believers.
To argue that he MADE them believe is not acceptable because everyone I've spoken to says that God did not force them to believer, nor does He believer for them.
Therefore, they themselves believed on their very own.
See #393. Same issue, I think.
That is overly and conveniently simplistic. You are setting up a false dichotomy between coerced believe/imputed belief and libertarian belief. You leave no room for the notion that God could efficaciously bring about belief with perfect certainty as a free function of the will of the individual on a selective basis. And you must necessarily incorporate that possibility into your hypothesis since in addition to God's knowledge of His promises He must also therefore have knowledge of His actions.
See #395. Same answer :)
We mortals tend to put everything in causal order not realizing that God created causality itself.
That He says there will be a new heaven and earth establishes the Truth of it over all of time – even though we perceive it as a future event and part of a causal chain of events. Likewise that our names are recorded in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world is a violation our sense of causal order – for instance, commandments with warnings for failures and rewards for successes (cause/effect).
There is nothing in space/time dimensionality that requires causality and yet science trusts physical causality to make its observations - and we mortal creatures have a sense of causality in both the passing of time and in our reasoning.
So I meditated on causality itself – what purpose does it serve that there should be causes and effects? After all, God knows His own will. Why did He create causality?
The Spiritual purpose I can see in causality is to allow for free will choice, i.e. to raise up His family. He calls many (perhaps even virtually all) into the family but allows everyone so called to say “no”. And those who say “yes” He presents with many scenarios in causal order (cause/effect) - where they must continue to make choices, becoming sanctified, growing up as members of the family. Without cause/effect there could be no free will.
But that’s just my “two cents”
You do not believe that God believes for them. You do not believe that God forces them to believe. You do believe that no unbeliever is saved.
Therefore, you believe that they believe on their own.
We both believe that God influences them toward belief but stops short of doing it for them.
God knows God's promises. More than that, probably, God's promises are a natural extension of God's nature. Therefore, God in any case would have accepted a believer.
Why?
As a picture: If God were on the bank of a river and all mankind were floating by to the waterfalls of destruction, surely, if He loved all (I believe He does), he would save all. Why then aren't all saved?
If God, out of love, chose to throw a rope to every person that floated by, it would demostrate His love for all mankind - He loves all mankind. All one has to do to be saved, is choose to grab the rope. Many do not choose to grab the rope because they don't believe that they are headed to destruction, or they believe that the rope-thrower is unwilling, or unable to actually save them, or finally, because they are enjoying the ride too much to get out.
And still, many grab the rope, but for numerous reasons, cast it aside before they've reached the bank.
If God stands outside of time and knows all information, then he would foreknow those that would repent and believe on Christ (grab the rope). Those then, are the elect. The gospel is made available to them based oh His foreknowledge that they would repent and believe.
Doesn't this explain election and freewill.
The Calvinist will obviously insist that reprobates have no arms.
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.