Does God So Love the World? (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.

[3]John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, William Pringle, trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 reprint), 123.

”(I hope I'm not testing your patience in this discussion. I'm really benefiting from it greatly. Feel free to let it drop if you think it has run it's course.)”

Actually I enjoy the quite discussions. I’m benefiting from this discussion as well and hope I don’t sound too preachy. It is important to examine the truths we hold and I’m a pilgrim like you. It sure is quiet. :O)

Your point about the historic position of the (western) Church is important. Do you know what the general consense of the early fathers was? I do not.

When I first heard about the monergistic view several years ago I couldn’t believe there was another view. I examined a number of writings and documents of the early church fathers and historical context of the church in general. Unfortunately it was for my own benefit. I never thought that I would need the information so I never took any notes. That being said had I done so I would still recommend people come to their own conclusion. People may argue with me but this is my understanding.

Up until the 3rd century the early Christians never worried about theology. They were primarily trying to evangelize. It was only when Gnostic errors started to creep within the church that the early church fathers began to put together the Bible and theology of the church. The western church held the monergistic view under Augustine (upon which Calvinism is built). Pelagius was Augustine’s arch rival and held a synergistic view and was discredited. The Council of Orange, 150 years after Augustine, formalized the Augustine’s view and is the general consensus in my opinion. One would have thought that would have put the matter to rest.

The Eastern Orthodox along with their early church fathers adopted a modified version of the Pelagius view which was synergistic in nature almost in parallel. You will find few EO who hold Augustine or his teachings in high regards. Instead they prefer their church fathers such as Chrysostom. (BTW-Calvin sometimes refers to Chrysostom’s writing which is strange in my mind for Chrysostom’s writings can be strange.) The EO, as best as I can tell, have always held a synergistic view for which I respect their historical structure although I think they are incorrect.

About 150 years after the Council of Orange, synergism raised its head in the western church and they decided to take a middle of a road approach adopting both views. It is my opinion that the monergistic/synergistic tension of the western church was further exacerbated with the Renaissance which brought in humanism and a man-centered philosophy almost 600 years later. Many of the prominent church members were also prominent scientists during the Renaissance. This played into the hands of a synergistic view with its focus on man’s free will.

It was under the pressure of humanism and other things within the western church that Luther nailed the thesis on the door and left. Protestantism was started on a monergistic theology and the Catholic Church quickly denounced the monergistic view through the Council of Trent (rejecting IMO the Council of Orange). It only was about 100-150 years later that Arminian modified the semi-Pelagian view for Protestantism and created the Remonstrate. The early Protestant church fathers saw this danger and published the TULIP in response to this error. But the damaged was done.

Today, 500 years later, we see the EO, Roman Catholics, and a good portion of Protestant denominations believing in synergism. Historically, what was thought to be a heretical belief within the western church is now virtually a universally held standard. It isn’t surprising that EO, Roman Catholics and many Protestants are finding they have a number of things in common.

I’m sorry to be so long winded but it is hard to summarize 2000 years of church history. There are private reasons why I reject the eastern view and accept the traditional western view. These I’ll send you in Freepmail. I know some would disagree with my conclusions but, hey, what else is new. :O)

”In each of these cases the person was chosen in order to bring God's blessing to others”

And that is my point. God chose these people just like you, I and the rest of the Christians are chosen for a particular task. Some of us are not chosen as dramatically as Paul but we are still chosen by God to bring blessing to others.

”Yes, but did it HAVE to be that way?” YES

”Was there another way (like Esther)?” NO

This was God’s plan from the start. Man does not change God’s plan.

”About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God." Cornelius was unregenerate.”

Well, you got me there. At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to dodge a bullet, this is part of the mystery surrounding why God choose people. Why did God call out Abram and not his brother Joe? Why did Noah find favor before God? Why did Cornelius “prayers and alms” ascend to heaven and not Pharisee Fred down the street? We know salvation isn’t because of any works we can do. So why does God select someone and not someone else? I just don’t know. But Cornelius is a great example of God choosing us.

Please check your mail.

***Given a choice unregenerate man will always choose evil no matter what his intentions. ***
I can not fully agree with this. Look at the following verse...
"At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.
About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God."
Cornelius was unregenerat

I think the problem is with the word "evil" .

The bible tells us that what is not of faith is sin , and that without faith it is impossible to please God.

This is speaking to what God sees as evil .

God heard the prayers of Abraham and other OT saints.

This is from a commentary by Gill and I believe it is sound

And said, what is it, Lord what is the matter? what is to be said or done? What is the reason of this unusual appearance? Some of the Latin copies, and the Ethiopic version, read, "who art thou, Lord?" but by the angel's answer, not this, but the former was the question: for it follows,

and he said unto him, thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God; that is, the prayers which he had put up in faith, for himself and family, and the charitable actions he had performed from a principle of love, were like sacrifices upon the altar, which ascended to God with acceptance; so these sacrifices of prayer and beneficence came up with acceptance from off that altar which sanctities the gift, or were acceptable to God, through Jesus Christ; these were taken notice of, approved by God, and remembered by him, and the fruits and effects he was shortly to enjoy; for that Cornelius was a believer, need not be questioned; since he was not only a devout and religious person, but one that feared God, which includes the whole of religion, internal and external; and so faith in Christ, without which he could not pray aright: there is no doubt of it, but he had read the prophecies of the Old Testament, attended the synagogues of the Jews, and believed in the Messiah to come, though he did not know that he was come, and that Jesus of Nazareth was he; so that his faith was of the same kind with that of the saints before the coming of Christ; and in this faith he did all the good works he did, which became acceptable to God through Christ, and without which it is impossible to please him.

You’re assuming that Cornelius wasn’t regenerated and in an unregenative state could please God apart from faith. Other scriptures would say this is incorrect. Salvation is a multiple step process culminating in regeneration. Thus Cornelius believed God and his faith was reckoned as righteousness although he still had several steps to go through in the full salvation process. This is the same as Abraham who was justified by faith and 17 years later justified by his works. You’ll find that Calvin agrees.

From Calvin’s Commentaries on Acts 10:

But the Papists abuse this place two ways; for because God respected the prayers and alms of Cornelius, so that he endued him with the faith of the gospel, they wrest that unto the preparations which they have invented, as if a man did get faith by his own industry and power, and did prevent the grace of God by the merits of works. Secondly, they gather, generally, that good works are meritorious in such sort, that the graces of God are increased in every man as he hath deserved.

In the former they are too childishly deceived, whilst that they feign that the works of Cornelius were acceptable to God before he was illuminate by faith. And we need not to fet [seek] a proof far to refute their ignorance; for he could obtain nothing by prayer unless faith went before, which only openeth the gate for us to pray; and Augustine weigheth that well and wisely, who derideth Pelagius, because he said that faith was obtained by prayers before it was in man in any measure: Who (saith he) will seek a physician save he who is already healed in some part? And it is the health of faith which teacheth us to knock. Furthermore, the fear of God and godliness do plainly prove that he was regenerate by the Spirit. For Ezekiel giveth this praise to God alone, that he frameth the hearts of men to fear him, (Ezekiel 32:40.) And Isaiah saith, that the Spirit of the fear of God resteth in Christ, (Isaiah 11:2,) that we may know that he can be found no where save only in his members. Therefore it is too great folly to feign a man in the person of Cornelius, who, having nature for his guide, can attain unto eternal life, or endeavor to come thither. Therefore they reason blockishly, that we are able to prevent the grace of God with the merits of works.

As touching the second error, when as they imagine that every one of us is increased with greater graces as he hath deserved, it may easily be refuted. First, we deny that we have any good works which God hath not freely given us; secondly, we say that the right use of gifts cometh from him also and that this is his second grace, that we use his former gifts well. Thirdly, we deny that we deserve any thing by our works, which are always lame and corrupt. Good works do indeed purchase for us the increase of grace, but not by their own desert. For they cannot be acceptable to God without pardon, which they obtain by the benefit of faith. Wherefore it is faith alone which maketh them acceptable. Thus did Cornelius obtain more perfect knowledge of Christ by his prayers and alms, but in that he had God to be favorable and merciful to his prayers and alms, that did depend upon faith.

Furthermore, if good works be esteemed [estimated] by faith, it is of mercy, and not of merit, that God doth allow [approve] them. For because faith findeth no worthy thing in us whereby we can please God, it borroweth that of Christ which we want. And this is too perverse, that though the Papists have this word merit every now and then in their mouths, and cease not to puff up fools with a vain confidence, yet they bring nothing whereby the studies of men may be moved to do well. For they leave their consciences always in a doubt, and command men to doubt whether their words please God or not. Must not men’s minds need faint when they are possessed with such fear? But as for us, though we take merit from works, yet when as we teach that there is a reward laid up for them, we prick men forward with an excellent and sharp prick, to desire to live well. For we address ourselves then joyfully to serve God, when we are persuaded that we lose not our labor. And whereas there appeareth at this day no more plentiful abundance of the gifts of the Spirit, but that the more part doth rather wither away, we must thank our unthankfulhess for that. For as God did crown Cornelius’ prayers and alms, and holiness, with the most precious pearl of his gospel, so there is just cause why he should suffer us to starve, being brought unto hungry poverty, when as he seeth us abuse the treasure of his gospel wickedly and ungodlily.

Yet here may a question be asked, Whether faith require the knowledge of Christ, or it be content with the simple persuasion of the mercy of God? for Cornelius seemeth to have known nothing at all concerning Christ. But it may be proved by sound proofs that faith cannot be separated from Christ; for if we lay hold upon the bare majesty of God, we are rather confounded with his glory, than that we feel any taste of his goodness. Therefore, Christ must come between, that the mind of man may conceive that God is merciful. And it is not without cause that he is called the image of the invisible God, (Colossians 1:15;) because the Father offereth himself to be holden in his face alone. Moreover, seeing that he is the way, the truth, and the life, (John 14:6;) whithersoever thou goest without him, thou shalt be enwrapped on every side in errors, and death shall meet you [thee] on every side. We may easily answer concerning Cornelius. All spiritual gifts are offered unto us in Christ; and especially whence cometh regeneration, save only because we are ingrafted into the death of Christ, our old man is crucified? (Romans, 6:5, 6.) And if Cornelius were made partaker of the Spirit of Christ, there is no cause why we should think that he was altogether void of his faith; neither had he so embraced the worship of the true God, (whom the Jews alone did worship,) but that he had also heard F671 somewhat of the promised Mediator; though the knowledge of him were obscure and entangled, yet was it some. Whosoever came at that time into Judea he was enforced to hear somewhat of the Messiah, yea, there was some fame of him spread through countries which were far off. Wherefore, Cornelius must be put in the catalogue of the old fathers, who hoped for salvation of the Redeemer before he was revealed. And it is properly [improperly] said of Augustine, that Peter grounded his faith; whereas it had now before a firm foundation; although Augustine thinketh as we do in the thing itself, who affirmeth plainly, that Cornelius could not pray unless he had faith, in his Book of the Predestination of Saints, and other places.

***Thus Cornelius believed God and his faith was reckoned as righteousness although he still had several steps to go through in the full salvation process.***

This is a new concept to me. Does Reformed theology allow for regeneration before one has heard the Gospel? (An interesting, off-topic note: one of my teachers pointed out to me that the angels are not allowed to preach the Gospel in this era - that privelege has been given to man alone.)

***Salvation is a multiple step process culminating in regeneration***

If you don't mind me asking, in the Reformed tradition what are these steps seen to be?

***for he could obtain nothing by prayer unless faith went before****

So Calvin says Cornelius must have had "faith" due to the fact that his prayers were answered (and only prayers on faith are answered).

***Furthermore, the fear of God and godliness do plainly prove that he was regenerate by the Spirit.***

I'm sorry, Calvin lost me here. I can see putting Cornelius in the camp of the OT saints (Heb 11 etc.) but to call him regenerated by the Spirit before he even heard the Gospel or received the Spirit is straining the definition of "regenerate". This would mean that the OT saints, in their day, were born-again also. But is this not against the teaching of Scripture which promises the new birth only to those under the new covenant?

Wouldn't it seem that Cornelius was still in a darkened condition as evidenced by his prostraiting himself... "When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him."?

***although Augustine thinketh as we do in the thing itself, who affirmeth plainly, that Cornelius could not pray unless he had faith,...***

I guess this really gets to the heart of Reformed theology doesn't it? The question becomes, can one have "faith" before one is regenerated or born again? Calvin says no - Cornelius MUST have been regenerated BECAUSE he evidenced faith. This, he believes, would account for Cornelius' good deeds.

But that seems to conflict with the Biblical principle:

"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved...

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

...

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Wouldn't it seem, given the facts of Cornelius' story that that's what he was missing - hearing the gospel preached. "While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word."

(PS - Talk about a mind blowing verse - look at this... "So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.")

You're talking to a person who is unqualified to provide you with the "official" Reformed position. I can only tell you my understanding.

There are some who believe salvation is an instantaneous thing. I, OTOH, believe that a person salvation can happen in a moment or it could happen over many years. To give you a case in point besides Cornelius, there is the example of Abraham. We know that God told Abraham in Gen 12 to go and leave his folks which he did. But it wasn’t until Gen 17 when Abraham was justified by faith and Gen 22 when he was justified by his works. Years had gone by yet God prosper Abraham from Gen 12 on until Abraham was justified by faith and works.

I see Cornelius as no different although it took 4-5 days for his salvation to be complete. God, as He did with Abraham, watches over those who He elects. Calvin simply points out that Cornelius already had an understanding of God and was devout. But it was God who came to Cornelius.

The Order of Salvation is as follows:

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.

I used "forced" years ago, with the explanation that I had absolutely no sensory "feeling" of being forced – I have no problem with it today. It was the only word I could come up with that explained what happened to this totally depraved, spiritually dead, me. Then the_doc, surely you remember him!, indirectly advised me to say “God changed my wants”. Either way, & I now say the latter, it was all of GOD, thank God. As John Owen points out in "Regeneration", regeneration is a physical event; RSV Eph 1:19- ".. & what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead ..."
I can not think of anything more physical than raising the dead. The analogy between regeneration & Christ being raised from the dead, even though only an analogy, is so glorious & profound!

As you well know I am sure the Greek word for "draw ( as in "Unless the Father draw them") also can be be interpreted as "drag"

I never thought about "voluntary or forced " on the day of my salvation I was just so humbled in the presence of God my response was to fall on my knees. The next day when I considered the night before I thought it must have been predestined because I did not expect or even understand what happened.

I am also ok with the idea of being "dragged" . I can not understand how one could object to God desiring to save them and draw them and use them for His glory. What an honor !

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.