Does God love everyone?

[CredoBiblicist]

What is the Calvinist position on this?

 

[twin1954]

What is the Calvinist position on this?

I don't answer for all Calvinists as there is a little disagreement among us concerning this subject. Some say that there is a sense in which God's love extends to everyone in common grace. Others, such as myself, believe that the love of God is upon the elect only.

 

[CredoBiblicist]

I don't answer for all Calvinists as there is a little disagreement among us concerning this subject. Some say that there is a sense in which God's love extends to everyone in common grace. Others, such as myself, believe that the love of God is upon the elect only.

I see. I find it hard to rationalize that it is toward the elect only, would that not mean that Jesus' command to love one another would be hypocritical? See Luke 6:32 and Matthew 5:46. So we're to love everyone but God doesn't do the same? Or am I missing something here?

 

[singlecandle]

There are different kinds of love.
I think electing love is different.

 

[bsd058]

There are different kinds of love.
I think electing love is different.

I agree. God has a special love for his elect.

Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Of course, God only foreknows the elect for salvation.


He does seem to have a general love for all men (lovers and haters of God). And we are to mirror this love as Jesus stated in Matthew 5:43-48:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so 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. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[twin1954]

This isn't a debate post but I did want to give another point of view to think about. While we do have different kinds of love, I don't love my wife the same way I love my daughters, it isn't true of God. He loves completely and His love is always spoken of in a saving context. He loves His enemies in that the elect are by nature His enemies. The non-elect receive good things from Him because it serves the elect some way. He gives the reprobate no consideration except as they serve His purpose to bless the elect in Christ.

To say that He loves the reprobate is to make His love a worthless emotion just like ours. He loved Jacob and hated Esau. There are 3 words in Greek translated love, but only 1 is ever used in connection with God. It carries the thought of doing the best for the object of love.

As there are no degrees to God's love there can't be different kinds of love in God.

I would continue but I am typing this on my IPhone.

 

[singlecandle]

This isn't a debate post but I did want to give another point of view to think about. While we do have different kinds of love, I don't love my wife the same way I love my daughters, it isn't true of God. He loves completely and His love is always spoken of in a saving context. He loves His enemies in that the elect are by nature His enemies. The non-elect receive good things from Him because it serves the elect some way. He gives the reprobate no consideration except as they serve His purpose to bless the elect in Christ.

To say that He loves the reprobate is to make His love a worthless emotion just like ours. He loved Jacob and hated Esau. There are 3 words in Greek translated love, but only 1 is ever used in connection with God. It carries the thought of doing the best for the object of love.

As there are no degrees to God's love there can't be different kinds of love in God.

I would continue but I am typing this on my IPhone.

That sounds like a good explanation too. Perhaps there are various
expressions of the single type of love God possesses. Maybe it is that God's love for the elect is so vast that the non-elect get a taste of it.

 

[singlecandle]

BTW, Twin1954, that was a really good explanation.
Wish you'd get in on the debates more often around here.

 

[twin1954]

That sounds like a good explanation too. Perhaps there are various
expressions of the single type of love God possesses.

All that God does is for the glory of His name and the good of His people. He uses the reprobate He doesn't love them. He uses Satan to fulfill His purpose but He doesn't love him.He raised up Pharaoh in order to decalre His power and golry in the salvation of His people but He never gave Pharoah any consideration. God expressesed His love in the Person and work of Christ. He is the fullness of the Godhead in a body and the express image of God. In Christ alone can we know anything of the love of God. Nature declares the power and wisdom of the Most High but in the face of Christ, who is the embodiment of the love of God, does His glory shine. 2Cor. 4:6

Maybe it is that God's love for the elect is so vast that the non-elect get a taste of it.

Tjhey recieve a temporay beniefit from it in a material manner but it isn't an ovarflow of love towards the elect that they get a part in. God doesn't waste His love.

 

[twin1954]

BTW, Twin1954, that was a really good explanation.
Wish you'd get in on the debates more often around here.

I gave up debating a while back. I am convinced that the Scriptures forbid it and it more often than not only creates heat. I post here in an effort to help folks understand. If I don't think I can say anything to help I don't post. I also pick my battles. It has taken me a long time and not a few scars to learn that trick.

 

[singlecandle]

All that God does is for the glory of His name and the good of His people. He uses the reprobate He doesn't love them. He uses Satan to fulfill His purpose but He doesn't love him.He raised up Pharaoh in order to decalre His power and golry in the salvation of His people but He never gave Pharoah any consideration. God expressesed His love in the Person and work of Christ. He is the fullness of the Godhead in a body and the express image of God. In Christ alone can we know anything of the love of God. Nature declares the power and wisdom of the Most High but in the face of Christ, who is the embodiment of the love of God, does His glory shine. 2Cor. 4:6 Tjhey recieve a temporay beniefit from it in a material manner but it isn't an ovarflow of love towards the elect that they get a part in. God doesn't waste His love.

Wow!

You are helping me understand a lot.
Thank you for posting!!!

 

[bsd058]

This isn't a debate post but I did want to give another point of view to think about. While we do have different kinds of love, I don't love my wife the same way I love my daughters, it isn't true of God. He loves completely and His love is always spoken of in a saving context. He loves His enemies in that the elect are by nature His enemies. The non-elect receive good things from Him because it serves the elect some way. He gives the reprobate no consideration except as they serve His purpose to bless the elect in Christ.

To say that He loves the reprobate is to make His love a worthless emotion just like ours. He loved Jacob and hated Esau. There are 3 words in Greek translated love, but only 1 is ever used in connection with God. It carries the thought of doing the best for the object of love.

As there are no degrees to God's love there can't be different kinds of love in God.

I would continue but I am typing this on my IPhone.

I feel this might be a bit unbalanced.

Jesus tells us to love our enemies in Matthew 5, and then he gives us an example of the kind of love God shows for his enemies which we are to emulate.

Matt 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The passage doesn't state that the enemies mentioned in this passage are elect. It seems to me that God shows his love to all men, and proof of this (according to Christ) is that both the good and the evil receive God's blessings and provision.

Also, just because there is one word describing God's love for humans, it doesn't follow that there aren't different subtypes of that love.

Just my take on it.

See here for GTY's take on it: Does God Love His Enemies?

 

[twin1954]

I feel this might be a bit unbalanced.

Jesus tells us to love our enemies in Matthew 5, and then he gives us an example of the kind of love God shows for his enemies which we are to emulate.

Matt 5:43-48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The passage doesn't state that the enemies mentioned in this passage are elect. It seems to me that God shows his love to all men, and proof of this (according to Christ) is that both the good and the evil receive God's blessings and provision.

Also, just because there is one word describing God's love for humans, it doesn't follow that there aren't different subtypes of that love.

Just my take on it.

See here for GTY's take on it: Does God Love His Enemies?

I will answer the last part first. You already know what I think O John MacArthur.

Now for the rest of your post. First I want you to understand that I am in no way trying to debate this with you. I will only post this one more time and let you have the last word on the subject. My purpose is to show that my view is not only balanced but a Biblical one.

I want to ask you a few questions first.
What kind of love was it that God had for all those souls He drowned in the Flood?
What kind of love was it that God had for Korah and those whom He opened up the earth and swallowed?
What kind of love did God have for all those people that He told the Israelites to destroy without mercy in Caanan?
What kind of love does God have for all those workers of iniquity that He says He hates in Psa. 5:5?
What kind of love did God have for Esau?
What kind of love would you say a man has for children when 2 are in immediate danger of being destroyed and he only saves one while he could have just as easily saved both?


Again, everywhere the love of God is spoken of it is always in connection to salvation. Even John 3:16 connects God's love with salvation.

Lets look at the chapter in the Scriptures that actually describes love, 1Cor. 13.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. (1Co 13:4-8)

Would you agree that this is a description of love? If so how does it fit with your notion that God has a sort of kind of love for the reprobate? Is there any kind of real love that isn't described here?

Now to look at the Matt. 5 passage:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Mat 5:43-48)

This is part of the Sermon on the Mount where Christ Jesus the Lord is preaching the spirituality of the Law. In another place He tells us that the whole Law is to love God with all your soul, heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. The passage wasn't intended to teach us about the love of God but to show us how far short we fall from the perfect Law. It is the usual one used in defense of God's universal love from Calvinists. The only problem is that to come to the conclusion that you do from it you must read into it what isn't there. When He says that we are to love our enemies and pray for those who dispitefully use us that we may be sons of our Father in Heaven because He makes His rain to fall on the just and the unjust He isn't telling us that God loves the just and the unjust. If that were what He is teaching then there are many Scriptures that very clearly tell us that He hates some folks that He must give an answer for. The Lord Jesus never contradicted Scripture. He fulfilled it. We must understand the passage in the context of the teaching of the whole of Scripture and the context of His teaching as a whole in this sermon. The Scriptures teach that God loves His elect. It doesn't teach that He loves the reprobate. Even Psa. 2 speaks of Him laughing at the destruction of those who will not bow to Him.
The Lord Jesus in this portion of His Sermon on the Mount is simply telling us that we are not like God. His love and His hate are perfect and pure. He isn't telling us that God loves those whom He makes his rain to fall on but that even thay benefit from what God does in this life.

Now to shaow that the rain that falls on the unjust is for the good of His people not the good of the unjust.

David the Psamist said: Psa 57:2 I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me. No matter how you look at it David is saying that everything that God does is for him.

Paul reiterates the same thing in 2Cor. 4:15

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
(2Co 4:14-16)

And of course the familiar passage from Romans;
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It seems abundantly clear that God does what He does in His providence for the elect and uses the reprobate to that end and nothing more. He used the Caananites to provide a land flowing with milk and hoeny for His people. He used Pharoah to save His people with a mighty arm and an outstretched hand. He used the Moabites to bring Ruth to Boaz the Kinsman Redeemer who was used to bring about Christ in this world. He used the Pharisees, whom the Lord never said a good word to or about, to bring to pass His purpose of salvation through the substitutionary sacrifice of His Son. Example after example can be given.

Now to the logical aspect of God having a sort of kind of love for the reprobate.

If there is a sense in which God loves the reprobate what good does His love do them? You answer that they recieve the rain just as the elect do. But is it good to them when they only despise Him who sends it and deny Him. Does that not only add to their damnation? How is that good for them?

You say that God has a kind of love for the reprobate but what does that do to the love of God? It make it a meaningless emotion just like ours. He loves them in some way but either can't or doesn't do anything to save them. Is that really love?

I have already gone farther than I intended so I will stop here. I would appreciate it if you are going to answer that you answer each point not just the ones you think you can handle.

 

[bsd058]

I will answer the last part first. You already know what I think O John MacArthur.

Ya, I guess I was just hoping you would have read it and took the information for what it was instead of rejecting it because it came from Johnny Mack's ministry (wasn't written by him, but by one of the people under his umbrella).

But maybe you did read it anyway.

Now for the rest of your post. First I want you to understand that I am in no way trying to debate this with you. I will only post this one more time and let you have the last word on the subject. My purpose is to show that my view is not only balanced but a Biblical one.

I want to ask you a few questions first.
What kind of love was it that God had for all those souls He drowned in the Flood?

He provided for them and cared for them until he destroyed them in the flood. That's the kind of love he has in general for all people. a love and care for them to provide for them.

In 1 Peter it tells us of God's patience toward them in those days.

What kind of love was it that God had for Korah and those whom He opened up the earth and swallowed?

Again, the kind of love God had was a general love.

No one is saying that he didn't want to show his wrath against them. That's a different thing altogether.

What kind of love did God have for all those people that He told the Israelites to destroy without mercy in Caanan?
What kind of love does God have for all those workers of iniquity that He says He hates in Psa. 5:5?
What kind of love did God have for Esau?
What kind of love would you say a man has for children when 2 are in immediate danger of being destroyed and he only saves one while he could have just as easily saved both?

To all of these I would say the same thing. I'm not saying that God didn't create them for destruction and that God didn't hate them in the salvific sense, too.

God loved them by giving his blessings to them (as Jesus taught--not me--Jesus).

Please see the very bottom for what I mean by "a general love."

Again, everywhere the love of God is spoken of it is always in connection to salvation. Even John 3:16 connects God's love with salvation.

Not true. Look at the passage I spoke to you about in Matthew again ( I know you tried to explain it, but it seems to me the explanation was inadequate). Jesus specifically tells us to love our neighbors and enemies in the manner that God loves them and provides for them.

I think you might be assuming your conclusion in order to dismiss that passage.

Because why bring up the fact that God destroyed men if it's true that God loves them generally, but not salvifically? The difference in these types of love would explain all of these.

Lets look at the chapter in the Scriptures that actually describes love, 1Cor. 13.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. (1Co 13:4-8)


Would you agree that this is a description of love? If so how does it fit with your notion that God has a sort of kind of love for the reprobate? Is there any kind of real love that isn't described here?

Yes. In fact, it is the love we are to have for one another. And this seems to mirror God's love toward us.

But again, is this the only definition of love? No. You can't just assume that.

Now to look at the Matt. 5 passage:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Mat 5:43-48)

This is part of the Sermon on the Mount where Christ Jesus the Lord is preaching the spirituality of the Law. In another place He tells us that the whole Law is to love God with all your soul, heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. The passage wasn't intended to teach us about the love of God but to show us how far short we fall from the perfect Law. It is the usual one used in defense of God's universal love from Calvinists. The only problem is that to come to the conclusion that you do from it you must read into it what isn't there. When He says that we are to love our enemies and pray for those who dispitefully use us that we may be sons of our Father in Heaven because He makes His rain to fall on the just and the unjust He isn't telling us that God loves the just and the unjust. If that were what He is teaching then there are many Scriptures that very clearly tell us that He hates some folks that He must give an answer for. The Lord Jesus never contradicted Scripture. He fulfilled it. We must understand the passage in the context of the teaching of the whole of Scripture and the context of His teaching as a whole in this sermon. The Scriptures teach that God loves His elect. It doesn't teach that He loves the reprobate. Even Psa. 2 speaks of Him laughing at the destruction of those who will not bow to Him.
The Lord Jesus in this portion of His Sermon on the Mount is simply telling us that we are not like God. His love and His hate are perfect and pure. He isn't telling us that God loves those whom He makes his rain to fall on but that even thay benefit from what God does in this life.

Now to shaow that the rain that falls on the unjust is for the good of His people not the good of the unjust.

David the Psamist said: Psa 57:2 I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me. No matter how you look at it David is saying that everything that God does is for him.

I guess this would kind of fit with Rom 8:28 that we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose...but I'll continue reading before I answer.

Paul reiterates the same thing in 2Cor. 4:15

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
(2Co 4:14-16)

And of course the familiar passage from Romans;
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It's not a bad way to reconcile this, actually. The reason God does anything good for the reprobate is to bring about good for his elect. Since this is a "thing." Hmm. I never saw that before.

Do you think that possibly we're not dealing properly with Matt 5, though? I mean, is the Father not used as an example in how we are to deal with our enemies? It seems to be the plain meaning.

It seems that Christ is actually and genuinely stating that we will be sons of God in the sense that a son does what he sees his father doing (similar to that in John 8:44 as to how the Pharisees did only what their father the devil did). <-- [PS - I hate to bring things in from another gospel since I almost feels it's taking terminology out of context, but I think it seems to fit in this situation.]

I don't think his point was only to show that the law was impossible to keep; he was on the mountain giving a more perfect law than that of Moses'. It appears his intention was to better define the law and how his followers should live.

I just want to be honest with the text. And I don't know if you've given a very good explanation as to why I should take this passage to imply that God does good for his enemies in order to bring blessings to his elect. Though other passages definitely explicitly state or imply that (therefore I believe it to be true, but not the meaning of this particular text)

This particular passage seems to imply that He does good for his enemies as well as his friends, and that this is an example of how we are to love our neighbors and enemies. It doesn't mention His purpose in that love at all.

It seems abundantly clear that God does what He does in His providence for the elect and uses the reprobate to that end and nothing more. He used the Caananites to provide a land flowing with milk and hoeny for His people. He used Pharoah to save His people with a mighty arm and an outstretched hand. He used the Moabites to bring Ruth to Boaz the Kinsman Redeemer who was used to bring about Christ in this world. He used the Pharisees, whom the Lord never said a good word to or about, to bring to pass His purpose of salvation through the substitutionary sacrifice of His Son. Example after example can be given.

Now to the logical aspect of God having a sort of kind of love for the reprobate.

If there is a sense in which God loves the reprobate what good does His love do them? You answer that they recieve the rain just as the elect do. But is it good to them when they only despise Him who sends it and deny Him. Does that not only add to their damnation? How is that good for them?

Except that I believe you're already assuming that the kind of love that was meant to provide for them food or shelter, etc, was the same kind that was meant to save them or reduce their punishment somehow. You're assuming that God only has one kind of love, which I don't agree with.

You say that God has a kind of love for the reprobate but what does that do to the love of God? It make it a meaningless emotion just like ours. He loves them in some way but either can't or doesn't do anything to save them. Is that really love?

Yes, it appears it is a form of love but not a salvific love. I don't give the different meanings to the word love (and I'm sure you agree based upon your quotation of what love is between the brethren). God does that through his word in the passages you quoted. But also in Matt 5 which I feel was not dealt with adequately.

I have already gone farther than I intended so I will stop here. I would appreciate it if you are going to answer that you answer each point not just the ones you think you can handle.

Haha. Ok. Ok.

I think I can handle the points above. I just think if you're going to assume that love has only one sense in God, then you're assuming your position before coming to your conclusion that God doesn't love the reprobate in some sense.

In the examples of the people God destroyed for sinning against him, you're assuming that God's provision isn't a "kind of love." It is, though. Clearly.

Matt 5 seems to define that as a kind of love. Again, it's not saying that God loves his enemies to bring them to salvation. It merely says that God loves his enemies and therefore we are to, as well.

I think you might be confusing salvific love and general love in the passages above. But that is the conclusion we're trying to come to that there is no difference. However, You cannot assume that in your questions or arguments in order to come to the conclusion.

When I speak of the general love of God, I speak of the action of God in providing food to eat or shelter or other earthly blessings. And I think that's what Christ was getting at in Matthew 5. That God doesn't just love his friends in that manner, but his enemies, too.

I don't think there is an honest way to explain Matt 5 with just that it was never meant to explain God's love. Well, perhaps that wasn't the primary meaning, but what does it imply about His love? I think it implies that God loves all men by "giving them rain" whether they reject him or not because of His hate for them in the salvific sense.

Let me give you an anology (and if not for you, for others who are watching our discussion):

I love my wife in the sense that I am committed to her and only her for the rest of my life hating all others in this sense. But just because I hate all others in this sense, it doesn't mean I hate them in the sense of helping them when they are hungry or needy. I love them in that sense. In fact I am to love everyone in that sense. Helping the needy in the most practical ways possible.

So, too, God hates certain men unto their destruction, but loves them by providing for them. The love I speak of is not an emotion or a desire to lessen their punishment. It is a provisional and general love. Yes, he works everything for the betterment of us, his elect, including loving his enemies in the sense above. Nevertheless he loves the reprobate in order to do this.

Clearly provision for material needs and salvation are distinct as far as scripture is concerned and as far as nouns go. Therefore I think the only biblical way to understand the types of love God has is to distiguish between God's provisional love for his enemies and elect and His salvific love he only has for his elect.

That's the only way to reconcile the definition of love (at least this type of love) given by Christ. Christ was not speaking of the love for the brethren which 1 Cor. describes). He was specifically speaking of love for our enemies. And the Father clearly does love his enemies per Jesus' teaching. It's not even proven, it's merely assumed that God loves his enemies in Jesus' argument. But the passage is not speaking of salvific love. It is speaking of general love.

Otherwise the explanation Christ gave wouldn't make any sense. You have to assume Christ was talking about God's love for His enemies in order to come to the conclusion that we are to do the same

 

[bsd058]

Also, in terms of the definition of love found in 1 Cor., I believe that this love would definitely include general love between the brethren. But general love would not include all that 1 Cor. states is love.

 

[twin1954]

Ya, I guess I was just hoping you would have read it and took the information for what it was instead of rejecting it because it came from Johnny Mack's ministry (wasn't written by him, but by one of the people under his umbrella).

But maybe you did read it anyway.

No I didn't. I have heard the argument before I am sure though. It pains me to go back on my word but I believe the subject to be important enough to continue at least for a while. I ask your forgiveness for not doing what I said I would do.

He provided for them and cared for them until he destroyed them in the flood. That's the kind of love he has in general for all people. a love and care for them to provide for them.

You are confusing the providence of God with the love of God. Providing for them isn't necesarrily a manifestation of love. He could have just as easily been fattening them for the slaughter. A bad analogy but it stresses my point. God's provision for the reprobate is simply Him putting up with them until the time appointed for Him to destroy them. It isn't a token of some kind of general love at all it is Him bringing to pass that which He has purposed in time.

In 1 Peter it tells us of God's patience toward them in those days.

He was patient with them, bearing them and their stink in His nostrils until He had appointed their time of destruction and damnation. No love there either.

Again, the kind of love God had was a general love.

No one is saying that he didn't want to show his wrath against them. That's a different thing altogether.

You assume a general love in God that the Scriptures nowhere teach. We will get to Matt. 5 again soon. I once again ask you to show me any passage that speaks directly of the love of God that isn't connected to salvation. You seem to forget that the love of God is in Christ alone. God never intimates anywhere in His Word that He loves anyone outside of Christ. Christ is the whole, entire, complete manifestation of the love of God. How can God love in any sense those whom are outside of Christ? They are a stench in His nostrils, an abomination and unclean thing in His sight. When was there ever a time when it were not so of them? The elect are a different matter though. He chose them in Christ from before the foundation of the world to be the objects of His love in Christ. Though they be as full of wickedness and deceit as the reprobate He has never not loved them.

To all of these I would say the same thing. I'm not saying that God didn't create them for destruction and that God didn't hate them in the salvific sense, too.

Because that is the only explanation that will satisfy a general love. But it simply doesn't fly. You have to insert a general love into each example though plainly there is none.

God loved them by giving his blessings to them (as Jesus taught--not me--Jesus).

You assume that God sending the rain is a blessing but it a curse to them not a blessing. Prov. 21:4 says that even the plowing of the wicked is sin. That which results in good for the elect only adds to the damnation of the reprobate.

God also sends His drought and famine and tornadoes and floods on both the elect and the reprobate. Does that imply that He has a general hatred and wrath for the elect?

Please see the very bottom for what I mean by "a general love."

I know what you mean by it. This ain't my first rodeo.

Not true.

Then show me a passage where His love is spoken of in a general context other than the one in dispute. Point me to the Scriptures that actually teach such a notion.

Look at the passage I spoke to you about in Matthew again ( I know you tried to explain it, but it seems to me the explanation was inadequate). Jesus specifically tells us to love our neighbors and enemies in the manner that God loves them and provides for them.

Not inadequate just brief. Yes we are told to love our enemies and we are told that God loves His enemies but we are not told that God loves all His enemies. He does love those who are by nature His enemies and act as such before they are born anew. That is the picture that Christ is painting. He is foreshadowing the Gospel message in fact. It is in no way a necessary conclusion that God must love all His enemies from the passage. The context doesn't demand it nor does the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole, including Christ Himself elsewhere. Unless of course you want to take the Arminian interpretaion of John 3:16. I suppose that He shoud have said to those He condemns as goats telling them that He never knew them that He did love them them with a general love.

 

[twin1954]

I think you might be assuming your conclusion in order to dismiss that passage.

I assume nothing when it comes to the love of God. I take the teaching of the Scriptures and apply it to the passage. I am afraid you assume a general love in the passage that simply isn't there. Again show me a passage that speaks of the love of God that isn't vitally connected to grace and salvation in Christ. I would bet my life that you are an honest man. All I ask is the you be honest with the Book and with yourself.

Because why bring up the fact that God destroyed men if it's true that God loves them generally, but not salvifically? The difference in these types of love would explain all of these.

Actually it doesn't. What it does is describe and explain a man but not God. Is there any attribute of God that isn't perfect, pure and infinite? Can a general love be an infinite love? Can a general love be a pure love? Can a general love be a perfect love? A general love is a love that gives a little but not enough. A general love is a trickster who dangles a precious jewel before you and then jerks it away when you get close. A general love gives you a promise of hope but then smashes it.

Yes. In fact, it is the love we are to have for one another. And this seems to mirror God's love toward us.

But again, is this the only definition of love? No. You can't just assume that.

I didn't assume it. The fact that it is the only place in the Scriptures where love is described and defined is enough for me.

I guess this would kind of fit with Rom 8:28 that we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose...but I'll continue reading before I answer.


It's not a bad way to reconcile this, actually. The reason God does anything good for the reprobate is to bring about good for his elect. Since this is a "thing." Hmm. I never saw that before.

Lights coming on is a good thing.

Do you think that possibly we're not dealing properly with Matt 5, though? I mean, is the Father not used as an example in how we are to deal with our enemies? It seems to be the plain meaning.

Sure it is the plain meaning. But it doesn't define the love of God nor teach that God loves all men in some way. It is simply an example of how we are to treat each other. It is our acts not God's. It shows us how far short we fall not how God loves. It is an illustration not a dogmatic statement concerning God having a general love.

It seems that Christ is actually and genuinely stating that we will be sons of God in the sense that a son does what he sees his father doing (similar to that in John 8:44 as to how the Pharisees did only what their father the devil did). <-- [PS - I hate to bring things in from another gospel since I almost feels it's taking terminology out of context, but I think it seems to fit in this situation.]

Consider who He is talking to. He is talking to a mixed multitude. None of them as yet had the light that came after Pentecost. How often He had to explain His words to His most intimate disciples. Given that fact do you honestly think that He was telling this mixed multitude that they could be the chlidren of God if they did these things? The self-righteous religionist would say in his heart OK that is what I will do and think he could do it. The doubter would just say Hmm. The Pharisee would seek to find some way of condemning Him for His teaching. But the believer would take His Word into his heart and ponder the fact that it was far beyond what he could attain. That was the point of Christ's teaching in the passage. His message wasn't about God having a general love but about us not being perfect. He simply sets our imperfection against the backdrop of God's perfection to illustrate how far we are from what God requires. To take the passage as a prooftext for a general love in God is to misuse the passage and compromise the glorious truth of the love of God.

I don't think his point was only to show that the law was impossible to keep; he was on the mountain giving a more perfect law than that of Moses'. It appears his intention was to better define the law and how his followers should live.

Have you ever been able to live up to it? If His intention was to define how His followers should live then why haven't any of us lived up to it? I know this, the only hope of ever living up to such a high and lofty standard is that Christ live up to it for me. The Lord always destroys all hope in yourself before He gives you hope in Him. Now that is love.

I just want to be honest with the text. And I don't know if you've given a very good explanation as to why I should take this passage to imply that God does good for his enemies in order to bring blessings to his elect. Though other passages definitely explicitly state or imply that (therefore I believe it to be true, but not the meaning of this particular text)

This particular passage seems to imply that He does good for his enemies as well as his friends, and that this is an example of how we are to love our neighbors and enemies. It doesn't mention His purpose in that love at all.

The key word you use is imply. What it implies is that God makes His rain to fall on the just and the unjust. It doesn't imply that He loves the unjust. You imply that into the passage. Do me a favor and actually read the passage without your presupposition of the general love of God.

Except that I believe you're already assuming that the kind of love that was meant to provide for them food or shelter, etc, was the same kind that was meant to save them or reduce their punishment somehow. You're assuming that God only has one kind of love, which I don't agree with.

Believing the teaching of the Scriptures is not an assumption. You can disagree when you can come up with Scripture to refute it.

Yes, it appears it is a form of love but not a salvific love. I don't give the different meanings to the word love (and I'm sure you agree based upon your quotation of what love is between the brethren). God does that through his word in the passages you quoted. But also in Matt 5 which I feel was not dealt with adequately.

A form of love but not a salvific love. Did you actually say that to yourself before you wrote it? God's love is salvific. The Scriptures are abundantly clear on that.

Haha. Ok. Ok.

I think I can handle the points above. I just think if you're going to assume that love has only one sense in God, then you're assuming your position before coming to your conclusion that God doesn't love the reprobate in some sense.

I don't assume it the Scripture s declare it.

In the examples of the people God destroyed for sinning against him, you're assuming that God's provision isn't a "kind of love." It is, though. Clearly.

What it is is a confusion of love and providence. He saves those He loves and providentially sends food to the reprobate.

Matt 5 seems to define that as a kind of love.

No it is an illustration not a definition.

Again, it's not saying that God loves his enemies to bring them to salvation. It merely says that God loves his enemies and therefore we are to, as well.

Which is exactly my point.

I think you might be confusing salvific love and general love in the passages above. But that is the conclusion we're trying to come to that there is no difference. However, You cannot assume that in your questions or arguments in order to come to the conclusion.

I am afraid you are the one confused by your Arminain baggage not yet rid of. I haven't assumed my conclusion and the Scrpitures clearly show it. Once more I ask you to show me any other passage that teaches that God's love is not salvific.

When I speak of the general love of God, I speak of the action of God in providing food to eat or shelter or other earthly blessings. And I think that's what Christ was getting at in Matthew 5. That God doesn't just love his friends in that manner, but his enemies, too.

You describe providence not love.

I don't think there is an honest way to explain Matt 5 with just that it was never meant to explain God's love. Well, perhaps that wasn't the primary meaning, but what does it imply about His love? I think it implies that God loves all men by "giving them rain" whether they reject him or not because of His hate for them in the salvific sense.

Because it doesn't actually state a general love you must make it imply it. My interpretation and explanation of the passge is an honest one.

Let me give you an anology (and if not for you, for others who are watching our discussion):

I love my wife in the sense that I am committed to her and only her for the rest of my life hating all others in this sense. But just because I hate all others in this sense, it doesn't mean I hate them in the sense of helping them when they are hungry or needy. I love them in that sense. In fact I am to love everyone in that sense. Helping the needy in the most practical ways possible.

And you are a man not God. You have neither the power or wisdom of God. He has the power and wisdom to not only know what is best but to ensure that the best is done. God is a God of compassion for those He choses to be compassionate to. He is God and is not obligated to compassion or mercy or love the way we are. It is not too difficult if you are honest with yourself to be compassionate towards other because you need compassion yourself. You can give what you find in your power to give because you have need of the same things yourself. Not so with God. His compassion and love is pure, unbounded, undeserved and adds nothing to Him. And just like all His other blessings thay are particular and in and through Christ alone.

So, too, God hates certain men unto their destruction, but loves them by providing for them. The love I speak of is not an emotion or a desire to lessen their punishment. It is a provisional and general love. Yes, he works everything for the betterment of us, his elect, including loving his enemies in the sense above. Nevertheless he loves the reprobate in order to do this.

Clearly provision for material needs and salvation are distinct as far as scripture is concerned and as far as nouns go. Therefore I think the only biblical way to understand the types of love God has is to distiguish between God's provisional love for his enemies and elect and His salvific love he only has for his elect.

Again don't confuse Providence with love.

That's the only way to reconcile the definition of love (at least this type of love) given by Christ. Christ was not speaking of the love for the brethren which 1 Cor. describes). He was specifically speaking of love for our enemies. And the Father clearly does love his enemies per Jesus' teaching. It's not even proven, it's merely assumed that God loves his enemies in Jesus' argument. But the passage is not speaking of salvific love. It is speaking of general love.

No it isn't.

Otherwise the explanation Christ gave wouldn't make any sense.

Sure it does as I believe I have shown.

You have to assume Christ was talking about God's love for His enemies in order to come to the conclusion that we are to do the same

At least you now admit that you are assuming something.

 

[bsd058]

That's okay, twin. I figure I said so much that you'd have to respond. I would never hold it against you to defend your view in good conscience.

I think I'll just have to agree to disagree with you at this point. I don't think we'll be changing anyone's mind about the subject.

HOWEVER, you have given me food for thought. And I want to thank you for that. Much love.

 

[twin1954]

That's okay, twin. I figure I said so much that you'd have to respond. I would never hold it against you to defend your view in good conscience.

I think I'll just have to agree to disagree with you at this point. I don't think we'll be changing anyone's mind about the subject.

HOWEVER, you have given me food for thought. And I want to thank you for that. Much love.

I am glad I could be of help. One thing that I did find out during this discussion is that I now find this kind of debating painful. I used to live for it and derived great pleasure from it but now it is a sort of torture. I do want to be of help to folks here but debating just isn't what I want to do anymore at all.

 

[Iosias]

What is the Calvinist position on this?

God loves everyone