Thanks to the video going round on the world-wide interweb, I’ve been thinking about aspects of Calvinism that had been safely buried in old files from seminary. This is the relationship between Arminianism and Calvinism and the old objections to Reformed Protestant teachings on election, the atonement, and divine wrath. The video above by Jerry Walls is quite clear in presenting an argument that Calvinists don’t believe God is love. The implication is that Arminianism is superior (and true) because it teaches that God is love. Arminians really take John 3:16 seriously.
Here’s an instance of the complaint against Calvinism from Roger Olson:
Arminian: “You Calvinists don’t really believe in God’s love.”
Calvinist: “Oh, but we do. You’re so wrong! The Bible is clear about God being love.”
Arminian: “But you don’t believe God loves all people, so how can you believe, as the Bible says, that God is love?”
Calvinist: “God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways.”
Arminian: “Uh, you seemed to be in a trance as you said that. Are you sure you didn’t just hear that somewhere and are repeating it like a mantra—without really thinking about what you’re saying?”
Calvinist: “No, that’s what I really believe!”
Arminian: “How does God love those he predestined, foreordained, to hell?”
Calvinist: “He gives them many temporal blessings.”
Arminian: “You mean he gives them a little bit of heaven to go to hell in.”
I can certainly appreciate Olson’s point. One of the harder aspects of Calvinism to fathom is the notion of election. It is not a consoling doctrine if you are looking for charity and equality as most humans conceive of these ideals.
At the same time, I can’t imagine Arminians with their view of divine love ever convincing the likes of Woody Allen that God is love. Granted, Calvinism wouldn’t be persuasive either. But it is not as if secular folks like Allen don’t notice other features of existence that give pause to believing in a loving God. Human suffering is evidence that in this world not every human being experiences a slice of heaven before receiving their ultimate reward. Would Arminians really have us believe that a loving God makes sense of disparities on both sides of death?
For instance, if God is love, why do the penguins have to march and swim as far as they do to reproduce?
Or, if God is love, why does he allow people like Jimmy, Bunk, Omar, and Stringer Bell to live in as dysfunctional a place as 1990s Baltimore?
Or, if God is love, how do Arminians make sense of what Joshua and the Israelites did to the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai?
Everywhere you look, we don’t see a “wonderful day in the neighborhood.” So maybe the current crop of Arminian promoters need to switch from PBS to HBO where they could ponder circumstances that suggest a dark side of God, a deity who so loves the world that he sent his beloved son to bleed and die on a cross.
Old Life 
Br’er Walls, the late 70’s called and they want they’re brand of humor and style of presentation back. Oh, wait — it’s always the late 70’s in babdist land.
LikeLike
*their*….babdist correctly spelled.
LikeLike
While under the spell of the free-willers, I at times felt sorry for Pharaoh as he seemed to genuinely want to repent but was not able to because he wasn’t allowed to. And no amount of twisting/tweaking by my teachers satisfied my question. They acted with high dudgeon that I’d even dare to ask the question. It still is very real to me in my late 40s.
I consider most Arminians in my life to be bros/sisters in Christ, and pray that they will some day rest in His sovereign grace, especially when they are unable to flip on their “zealous and angry” religious switch due to illness or grief.
LikeLike
What I get from my the arminians I left is that somehow Calvinists are more judgemental, or elitist. So what if I am (emoticon).
The wire is at my library, I’m in the queue to get it next. It seems popular. Looking forward to it!
LikeLike
Psalm 73:18 Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin.
If the prosperity of the non-elect is some kind of “grace”, then the troubles of the elect must be not-grace. God is both sovereign and just. God is not only just to the non-elect. God is also just in saving the ungodly elect, because God in Christ has a righteousness for these elect. God blesses the elect on the basis of the atoning death of Christ. Since Christ did not die for the non-elect, God has no righteous basis for blessing the non-elect.
If God could bless guilty sinners apart from the cross of Christ in earthly things, why couldn’t God also extend salvation (the life of the age to come) to sinners apart from the righteousness of the death of Christ?”
God has one purpose in Christ. Everything Christ does is for the glory of Christ, and we need antithesis to everything that contradicts that. God’s love is not nearly as “difficult” to understand as D A Carson would have it. Christ has made propitiation for the sins of all those God loves.
Olson and Jerry Walls are not only offended at God’s sovereignty. They are also offended at God’s justice. They don’t like the nature of the cross as a substitutionary satisfaction of divine law.
Romans 3: 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Righteousness obtained and imputed demands life. Where there has been no righteousness, no satisfaction of the law, then God has no basis to give life (or any grace). Christ has not satisfied justice for the non-elect. Therefore God has no kind of love for the non-elect.
LikeLike
Roger Olson, Against Calvinism: “If it were revealed to you in a way that you couldn’t question or deny that the true God is actually as Calvinism says, would you still worship him?…I would not because I could not. Such a God would be a moral monster.” (p 85)
Olson, p 159, “Satan wants all damned to hell and God only wants certain number damned to hell.” Olson has cut through all the sophistry of analogy to human judges who reluctantly condemn criminals. If God has already forgiven some who have committed some sins but does not “try to” forgive the next person who committed those same sins, then Olson is just not going to worship that God.
We are talking about different gods, and it is personal. Either there are many or no gods, or there is one God and all other gods are idols we should not worship. We cannot simply excuse Roger Olson with the condescending and patronizing idea that he’s merely not as smart and consistent as we are..
Olson rejects any “necessary connection” between the accomplishment of redemption and the application of redemption. (p 150). He insist that if the redemption by Christ makes the redemption of the elect certain, then this must mean that the elect are born already redeemed and there is no need for faith or the legal application (imputation) of the redemption. Olson rejects the legal justice in which we who believe the gospel find our safety. There is no basis for thinking Olson worships “the same divine person” that we do.
LikeLike
Mark writes “Therefore God has no kind of love for the non-elect.”
But the Scriptures say:
Hosea 11:1-4 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love. ”
Deut 7:7 “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”
Mark 10:21&22 “Jesus looked at him and loved him. `One thing you lack,’ he said. `Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.”
Psalm 106:43-45 “Many times he delivered them, but they were bent on rebellion and they wasted away in their sin. Yet he took note of their distress when he heard their cry; for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented.”
LikeLike
1. where do any of your four prooftexts say that God loves the non-elect? Which of these texts even say that certain folks are non-elect?
2. If Christ never died for the non-elect, on what just basis does God love the non-elect?
3. Are the non-elect in Christ, or does God love them apart from Christ?
4. Todd, are you defending the idea of an universal but ineffective atonement? Are you saying that God wanted to love some people enough to save them from His wrath, but for some reason not in God, could not? Copying verses doesn’t give me much of a clue about what your “but” means..
LikeLike
@mark mcculley,
God has a love for the non-elect as creator, but not as redeemer. According to the doctrine of simplicity, God’s attributes are one, you can’t separate them. Thus, God is certainly just toward the non-elect in his condemnation of them, but he also has a general love for the non-elect. To deny any kind of love of God for all people is to tend toward hypercalvinism and to threaten the doctrine of divine simplicity.
God is not devoid of love in his judgment, nor is he devoid of justice in his mercy.
LikeLike
Matthew 5:44-45: “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father 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.”
The sun rises and the rain falls on the non-elect too, no?
LikeLike
This could get interesting to watch unfold. Loving our enemies is an illustration of how God makes the ungodly righteous, no? Kind of like how God told Hosea to marry the harlot- Israel was still a whoring after her idols. God had determined to love the elect of Israel to bring them out of their idolatries while the others (the non-elect) perished. What other kind of explanation can there possibly be?
LikeLike
Calvinist: “The problem with you Arminians is that you do not believe God is love.”
Arminian: “What!? Of course we do! We believe that God has a universal saving will, that He desires all people equally and without exception to be saved, and that He sent Jesus to die for everyone, and everyone has a genuine chance to be saved. Everyone has also been blessed with the power of free will to accept Jesus if they want to. God’s heart breaks when sinners reject Him, but heaven has a party when even one sinner makes a free-will decision for Christ!”
Calvinist: “Don’t you Arminians believe that God foreknew from eternity past who would accept Christ and who would reject Him?”
Arminian: “Well…yes. I’m no “open theist,” you know! What’s your point?”
Calvinist: “So, even before God created people like Pharoah and Esau and Judas Iscariot, He foreknew that they would ultimately reject Him and end up in hell. Corect?”
Arminian: “Yea…umm..I don’t see what this has to do with what I said about God’s universal saving love.”
Calvinist: “So you believe that God created people whom He knew would reject Him and end up spending an eternity of Christ-less misery and agony and torment in the flames of hell. Correct?”
Arminian: “Well…yea…but, they had a real opportunity to be saved if they had wanted to…”
Calvinist: “OK, but don’t you admit that God created them knowing full well that they would freely choose to reject Him and end up in hell, but He went right ahead and created them anyway?”
Arminian: “Well, yeah…”
Calvinist: “If God’s heart breaks every time a sinner rejects Him and ends up in hell, and if God has a universal saving will, equally desiring for everyone without exception to be saved, then how was it ‘loving’ for God to create these people in the first place, knowing where they would end up? Why not just create people whom He foreknows will accept Christ and be saved? Wouldn’t that be more ‘loving” of God?”
Arminian: “Uhhhh…oh, hey, look at the time! Got to run. Talk to you later…”
LikeLike
WLC Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
“A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ…”
Note that the WLC speaks of effectual calling as a work of God’s “special love to his elect.” I would argue that the word “special” is not “mere surplusage,” but rather describes the particular kind of love that God shows his elect. This special love must then be distinct from love that is not special, perhaps we could call it “general love” or “generic love.”
One problem with Arminian theology is that it does not allow for a common love or common grace; rather, God’s love for all, including the elect, is only potentially effectual. Geoff demonstrates this point well in the dialogue in the comment above.
LikeLike
1.”where do any of your four prooftexts say that God loves the non-elect? ”
Unless this describes only the elect within Israel – “Many times he delivered them, but they were bent on rebellion and they wasted away in their sin” then God loved them as he stated clearly “Yet he took note of their distress when he heard their cry; for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented.”
Which of these texts even say that certain folks are non-elect?
See above – unless all of Israel are elect he stated many times he loved them as a people. We should take God at his word.
2. “If Christ never died for the non-elect, on what just basis does God love the non-elect?”
By virtue they are his creation and image-bearers
3. “Are the non-elect in Christ, or does God love them apart from Christ?”
They are not in Christ.
4. “Todd, are you defending the idea of an universal but ineffective atonement?” No
“Are you saying that God wanted to love some people enough to save them from His wrath, but for some reason not in God, could not?”
No, it is not about could, it is about what God has revealed. He revealed he loves all people with a general love, but only choose to save some because of his special, saving love. It is not for me to try to make sense of it all, but to accept what Scripture reveals about God. See Mad Hungarian above.
LikeLike
The hungarian: God has a love for the non-elect as creator, but not as redeemer.
mark: Where does the Bible say this? What Reformed confession says this?
the hungarian: According to the doctrine of simplicity, God’s attributes are one, you can’t separate them.
mark: Again, where does the Bible say this, or one of the Reformed Confessions? 1. You just separated creation and redemption for the purposes of your argument, so how is that not a contradiction to your description of divine simplicity? If we can’t say that redemption is for some, but not all creatures, then we can’t agree with the Confessions about election. 2. Creation is not a secondary (plan B) purpose of God, since creation was necessary for God’s purpose of bringing glory to Jesus Christ, who is not only redeemer but also creator. 3. God is always just to everybody, and therefore there is no redemptive love for the elect apart from Christ’s righteousness. But God is just to the non-elect without ever loving them. If you think that God is love means that God loves everybody, then you are taking the position of the Arminians anathematised by Dordt.
the hungarian: he also has a general love for the non-elect. To deny any kind of love of God for all people is to tend toward hypercalvinism
mark: If the “hyper” word means that we disagree, so be it. If the “hyper” word means that you think you are in the majority or mainstream, then you need a definition despite your nuance of “tend to”. I don’t teach eternal justification, I don’t deny the duty of all sinners to believe the gospel of God’s love for the elect, which love is demonstrated in Christ’s propitiation. You are ignoring my initial point about there being no love apart from Christ’s death—do you have a text that teaches that all the sins of all sinners were imputed to Christ?
Or do you forget Jesus Christ when it comes to creation, culture, and the divine love?
the hungarian: God is not devoid of love in his judgment, nor is he devoid of justice in his mercy.
mark: You may have read this in Mcleod Campbell or Barth, but it’s a confusion of law and gospel. In the gospel, Christ satisfied the law for those God loves. For those who are not in Christ, the law condemns and God is just. Condemnation is not an effect of grace. The non-elect sin against God, but they do not sin against God’s love for them
dgh: But it is not as if secular folks don’t notice other features of existence that give pause to believing in a loving God. Human suffering is evidence that in this world not every human being experiences a slice of heaven before receiving their ultimate reward.
mark: why should unbelievers think that the goodness of God in sun and rain means that God loves them and desires to save them from wrath, when the Bible teaches clearly that God has already elected some sinners and has already not elected other sinners?
If the prosperity (sun and rain) of the non-elect is some kind of “grace”, then the troubles of the elect must be not-grace. But the goodness of providence is not some kind of grace for the non-elect.
Psalm 73:18 Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin.
LikeLike
What many call “common grace” (health, wealth, lack of suffering and trouble) is not really that common in the world. While many nonChristians tonight enjoy good things in this world, many of them also are having great problems (wars, poverty, starvation). And of course many Christians are
in the hospital tonight, or can’t afford a hospital, but their providential troubles do not prove that God does not love these Christians.
Of course what many call “common grace” is nothing but the two-will contradiction which defies rationality and teaches that God wishes to save from God’s wrath those God has not elect. This is not the distinction between law (command) and gospel (promise) but it’s an invention of a promise that God never made.
Psalm 73: 4 For they have no pangs until death;
their bodies are fat and sleek.
5 They are not in trouble as others are;
Romans 1 teaches that the wrath of God is already being revealed to the non-elect, as sinner is being “handed over” to sinner. The non-elect are not being handed over to the elect ( no Christendom where the supposed elect govern the non-elect). But God is in control, and already in some intermediate (intrusive) ways, displaying His wrath to the non-elect.
This prosperity is not common to all the non-elect. Neither is this health and wealth random. The health and wealth of some non-elect is God’s doing. Sometimes the non-elect have no pangs of conscience, and die without much trouble–often an “easy death”. On one level, we can say that they are deeply unhappy on the inside, and that they know enough by ‘general revelation” to know that God exists and that they are in trouble (and will be). But on another level, some of these non-elect boldly ask: How can God know?
In other words, they think there is no god, or if there is a god, then this god “has no clue”. Some of these non-elect are Kantians who think morality should not be contaminated by any thought of blessing or reward. The only way to be completely self-less, they say, is to deny any future beatitude ((or condemnation). But on the other hand, they say, well those who believe the gospel are not getting paid for it. They think that the sun and the rain they get proves to them that God doesn’t know what’s what.
These healthy and wealthy folks have not considered the idea that God is on purpose INCREASING THEIR PROSPERITY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR SIN, which is the opposite of what they would expect. And of course many who profess to know Christ also despise a theology of the cross.
Less sin, more prosperity, we tend to think, when we are not trusting God. But Psalm 73 teaches a “double bind”. God increases the prosperity of the non-elect not only because of their sin but also in order to make them more sinful and hard. What a fearful thing this is. God uses the “no troubles” as a means to increase their sin.
What kind of “grace” is this, this health and wealth which God uses as means to increase the sin of the non-elect? It’s not a strange kind of general grace . It’s not grace at all.
LikeLike
@mark mcculley
I’m not intending to confuse law and gospel — I was referencing Christ’s work (as the justifier). I’m no Barthian, just a humble OPC guy.
I referred to hypercalvinism because your position appears similar to that advocated by the Protestant Reformed Churches. If not, I apologize and invite clarification.
Regarding the Reformed standards, see above argument from WLC.
3 points of common grace defined in 1924 synod of the CRC Synod of Kalamazoo:
(1) There is a favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not alone toward the elect
(2) There is restraint of sin in the life of the individual and in society through the general operations of his Spirit without renewing the heart
(3) There is performance of so called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, though incapable of any saving good, can perform such civic good
For a more contemporary discussion, see this OPC study report: http://opc.org/GA/free_offer.html
Regarding Scriptural support, Todd has already spoken on that, there are also texts cited in the OPC study report.
You seem to be saying that all of God’s love is the special love of effectual calling, I am trying to distinguish two different kinds of love. There is a special love of God that is bound up with effectual calling. There is a general or common love of God for his creation, or you could call it common grace. Historically, the term common grace was treated by Reformed theologians under the subjects of providence or natural law.
Distinguishing between two different kinds of love does not violate the doctrine of simplicity because without making distinctions we could not speak of any attribute. The doctrine of simplicity means that God is not conflicted (he is both just and the justifier) and means that he is never without all his attributes (WCF 2.1 “without parts”, eg “simple”). It is traditionally treated in the doctrine of God as one of the incommunicable attributes.
LikeLike
@mark mcculley
Sorry, didn’t see your post before I posted, I’m pretty slow at this stuff.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I certainly don’t have the time and may not have the ability to lay out the traditional Reformed position regarding common grace and the free offer.
I would recommend John Murray (with a forward by Dr. R. Scott Clark) “The Free Offer of the Gospel”
LikeLike
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod of Dordt rejects the errors of those
I Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.
For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10).
II Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.
For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better–that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Heb. 9:17).
III Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.
IV Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ’s death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ’s merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.
V Who teach that all people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.
VI Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death…
on the three points in the Christian Reformed debate, I would recommend a reading of Christian Reformed theologian Bolt, who does not throw around the “hyper” word but looks back in some detail on the controversy
http://www.prca.org/articles/bolt.html
I John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”
I am still waiting for the Bible verses that teach that God loves sinners apart from Christ and His propitiation. The four verses cited by Todd do no such thing. If you want to prove that God loved each and every person in Israel, then you would need to prove that each and every member of Israel is elect in Christ. And then we would need to talk about which Israel you are talking about.
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Romans 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of ELECTION might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
LikeLike
“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” (God addressing the patriarch Abraham in response to Abraham’s pleading that his son Ishmrael might “live” before God; Gen. 17:20-21, ESV)
Scripture would seem to indicate that Ishmael was non-elect, for he was cast out of the covenant community, and God clearly states in the passage above that He will establish His covenant with Isaac, not with Ishmael. (See also Rom. 9:7-8 as further evidence of Ishmael’s reprobation.) Nevertheless, God explicitly says that He will “bless” Ishmael, and these blessings include such temporal and earthly benefits as multiple offspring and ultimately making of him a great nation. Are these “blessings” of God to Ishmael in reality really “curses” intended to fatten him up for slaughter in the end? If so, then the God of the Bible engages in doublespeak and equivocation. God is a plain-speaking God of truth, and when He says, “I will bless,” He does not mean by that, “I will curse.”
From the passage above and other Scriptural considerations it would seem that the Scriptures clearly acknowledge a non-redemptive, temporal love of God for the non-elect, a “love” that involves earthly blessings and which genuinely manifests the providential goodness, kindness and forbearance of God, but which is far below the sovereign, redemptive, saving love that God has exclusively for His elect in Christ. Sure, from the standpoint of human responsibility the non-elect (like Ishmael) turn God’s blessings into a curse. (And, yes, this happens ultimately according to the sovereign decree of God, who has saving mercy upon whom He wills to have such mercy, and who “hardens” whom He wills to harden.) After all, one of the things that will manifest the wickedness and guilt of the non-elect on Judgment Day is the fact that they despised and took for granted the riches of God’s goodness, kindness and forbearance toward them (a kindness which ought to have led them to repentance – Rom. 2:4). If the temporal “blessings” that the non-elect enjoy in this life are really only curses intended to fatten the wicked reprobate for the slaughter, then why would God hold them guilty for being ungrateful for these temporal blessings and for refusing to give Him thanks and worship for these temporal curse-blessings/blessing-curses?
I understand the problem some of my Reformed brethren have with the terminology of “common grace.” It is true that “there is nothing ‘common’ about God’s grace!” But we must give full weight to the abundant Scriptural evidence for the reality behind this terminology. (Call it “providential goodness” or “non-saving blessings” or some other terminology if you prefer.) It would seem that God does indeed have a “love” of sorts even for the non-elect. It is their despising of this genuine love of God that will make them all the more guilty when their deeds are exposed on Judgment Day. In the end the non-elect will not be able to blame God’s decree to pass them by in the operations of His saving mercy (His decree of reprobation) for their damnation, for to one degree or another all have experienced tokens of God’s providential goodness, kindness, and benevolence which should have led to their repentance. In the end the non-elect have only themselves to blame for their damnation, even as the elect have God alone to credit for their gracious salvation in Christ.
LikeLike
There’s a helpful discussion in Turretin, volume 1, beginning on page 241. It begins thusly: “Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follows creatures, called ‘love of the creature’ (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called ‘love of man’ (philoanthropia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called ‘love of the elect’ (eklektophilia).”
LikeLike
Mark-
Nothing of what you quotes from Dordt opposes the idea of a general love to all mankind. Rather the focus is on refuting teaching which says that the Atonement was not limited and particular to particular persons. No one here is taking issue with that.
I think this is one of those situations where we are unnecessarily getting bogged down with words. Whether we call it common grace/love/blessing or providence, it’s clear God grants benefits to the elect and reprobate alike. The sun shines and the rain falls on both alike; many reprobate enjoy prosperous lives and many elect suffer destitution. I agree that we should 1) not make more of this than we ought (I for one am uncomfortable with the label “common grace” because it seems to me that grace is a specific thing to do with salvation. I’m open to being proved wrong on this.); but we equally shouldn’t 2) treat this as insignificant. God could have destroyed the world and saved the elect well before now if He had wanted.
Ezekiel 18:32 tells us God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, the implication being that he desires sinners to repent. This is clear in Psalm 116:18 where we are told precious in God’s sight is the death of His saints. So we see here, I think, an attitude towards Man that desires he repent and a particular attitude towards His elect that He desires them to be with Him. Now are these two kinds of love? Is one an attitude of inclination towards all men but love only to the elect? I think it’s clear, though, that God creates Man in His image and therefore shows favour to all men above all other created beings. After all, all other living creatures on earth are sinless creatures, and yet it is we in our fallen state to whom God showed any mercy whatsoever- the angels who rebelled being cast into hell.
And when we say God is love we mean be is the perfect, absolute manifestation of love. His love is not a passion; it is love itself. Just as He is joy, mercy, peace, just, righteous, holy &c…
LikeLike
I’m confused as to why bless means a “temporal kind of love.” Why can’t it mean “God increases the prosperity of the non-elect not only because of their sin but also in order to make them more sinful and hard. What a fearful thing this is. God uses the “no troubles” as a means to increase their sin.
The temporal kind of love seems like a compromise to the thinking of the Arminians. Jerry Walls has more respect for the Calvinist who admits upfront that God does not love the non-elect even though Walls and Olson cannot stomach or worship a God like that.
LikeLike
John Yeazel wrote: “I’m confused as to why bless means a “temporal kind of love.” Why can’t it mean “God increases the prosperity of the non-elect not only because of their sin but also in order to make them more sinful and hard. What a fearful thing this is. God uses the “no troubles” as a means to increase their sin.”
GW: So are you suggesting that when God told Abraham in Gen. 17:20-21 that He was going to “bless” Ishmael, what He really meant was, “Abraham, I’m going to ‘bless’ (wink-wink) your son Ishmael by cursing him with an increase of earthly prosperity so that his heart will be further hardened and his damnation will be deepened”? Mind you, I’m not denying that that was the ultimate result of those earthly benefits (because Ishmael in his sin would ultimately turn God’s temporal blessings into an ultimate curse, as all the reprobate do); but was that the proximate intention God was communicating to Abraham when He assured him that He would “bless” Abraham’s son Ishmael?
John Yaezel wrote: “The temporal kind of love seems like a compromise to the thinking of the Arminians. Jerry Walls has more respect for the Calvinist who admits upfront that God does not love the non-elect even though Walls and Olson cannot stomach or worship a God like that.”
GW: Well, given David R.’s quotation above, are you saying that Francis Turretin had an Arminian-streak in his thinking? And regarding Jerry Walls and Roger Olson, why on earth should we care whether or not such Arminian heretics “respect” us Calvinists who affirm a non-saving, temporal love of God for the non-elect? (Yes, I do believe Arminianism is a heresy; so my label of them as “heretics” is not a personal attack, but an assessment of their theological position.)
LikeLike
For some of you (not me). Dordt has confessional authority. Those folks should study carefully chapters 3/4, looking for the use of the word “common”.
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those
Who teach that unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.
For these views are opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture: You were dead in your transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5); The imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil all the time (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). Besides, to hunger and thirst for deliverance from misery and for life, and to offer God the sacrifice of a broken spirit is characteristic only of the regenerate and of those called blessed (Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:6).
V Who teach that corrupt and natural man can make such good use of COMMON GRACE (by which they mean the light of nature)or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace– evangelical or saving grace–as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.
For Scripture, not to mention the experience of all ages, testifies that this is false: He makes known his words to Jacob, his statutes and his laws to Israel; he has done this for no other nation, and they do not know his laws (Ps. 147:19-20); In the past God let all nations go their own way (Acts 14:16); They (Paul and his companions) were kept by the Holy Spirit from speaking God’s word in Asia; and When they had come to Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit would not allow them to (Acts 16:6-7).
This is not to deny that John Murray with some very bad exegesis of some texts did teach “common grace”. It is to say that Dordt does not teach “common grace”, except as a doctrine to be rejected. No Christ’s righteousness, no love. No propitiation by Christ, no love.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/sermons/shedd-sermons-natural-man/the-exercise-of-mercy-optional-with-god.html
dgh: But it is not as if secular folks don’t notice other features of existence that give pause to believing in a loving God. Human suffering is evidence that in this world not every human being experiences a slice of heaven before receiving their ultimate reward.
mark: why should unbelievers think that their present health and wealth means that God loves them and desires to save them from wrath, when the Bible teaches clearly that God has already elected some sinners and has already not elected other sinners?
If the health and wealth of the non-elect is some kind of “grace”, then the troubles of the elect must be not-grace. But the goodness of providence is not some kind of grace for the non-elect. And the theology of the cross teaches Christians that their troubles are not a sign of God’s lack of love.
Psalm 73:18 Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin.
LikeLike
The Wire, season four, episode ten.
McNulty—”Let me tell you a little secret. The patrolling officer on his beat is the one true dictatorship in America. We can lock a guy up on the humble, lock him up for real, or drink ourselves to death under the expressway and our partners will cover us. No one, I mean no one, tells us how to waste our shift.”
Grace which is not optional for God is not grace. God is love and must love, but that does not mean that God loves everybody. Mercy which is not discretionary for God is not mercy.
Which is not to say that mercy is optional for us creatures.
God owes us nothing, but God by His Holy character will be just to everybody
Which is not to say that only God’s grace is sovereign, which is not to say that God’s justice is not sovereign.
Don’t you wish that the only troubles you had were vicarious troubles, ie, troubles you see on TV or in the movies or that you hear about other people having, or, even better, your sports or fantasy team losing? But even real troubles (our own) don’t prove that God doesn’t love us. Nor does the health and wealth of others prove that God loves them.
And, no I am not a nominalist or an occasionalist. Nor were Luther and Calvin. “Covenant” is not God’s way of saying that God owes us something.
LikeLike
Nothing I wrote above should be construed as denying our duty to be merciful, and not only to those who are brothers and sisters. As redeemed creatures, we are not in the same position as our sovereign Creator and Redeemer.
Romans 12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
LikeLike
troubles common to man, but not equal, also not random
Luke 4: 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.
LikeLike
GW: So are you suggesting that when God told Abraham in Gen. 17:20-21 that He was going to “bless” Ishmael, what He really meant was, “Abraham, I’m going to ‘bless’ (wink-wink) your son Ishmael by cursing him with an increase of earthly prosperity so that his heart will be further hardened and his damnation will be deepened”? Mind you, I’m not denying that that was the ultimate result of those earthly benefits (because Ishmael in his sin would ultimately turn God’s temporal blessings into an ultimate curse, as all the reprobate do); but was that the proximate intention God was communicating to Abraham when He assured him that He would “bless” Abraham’s son Ishmael?
John Y: I am guessing that Abraham probably had no idea what the blessing of Ishmael meant. I still don’t see how what you say has any relevance to God not loving the non-elect. I think I see what you are trying to say about the paradox of Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility. You are making the case for human responsibility in the face of God’s judgment on Ishmael due to his lack of proper response to God’s materially blessing of him and making of his offspring a great nation. But as Mark points out God’s mercy to sinners and justice in judging sinners are both taken care of by Jesus death and resurrection. God’s love is shown by placing his elect into Christ’s death. The non-elect are not placed into Christ’s death no matter how blessed they are materially or any other way. I don’t see the connection between God’s love and material blessing. The placing into the death of Christ is an act of God’s sovereign mercy, love and grace and human responsibility does not factor in (the ungodly). God did make clear to Abraham that it was Isaac who was the child of promise and Ishmael was the child of the bond-woman. Paul expounds on this pretty heavily in the book of Galatians. No love (substitutionary death of Christ) for the non-elect, love (placed into Christ’s death) for the elect. And this love for the elect obligates the elect to be merciful to all. The elect become debtors to show mercy.
GW: Well, given David R.’s quotation above, are you saying that Francis Turretin had an Arminian-streak in his thinking? And regarding Jerry Walls and Roger Olson, why on earth should we care whether or not such Arminian heretics “respect” us Calvinists who affirm a non-saving, temporal love of God for the non-elect? (Yes, I do believe Arminianism is a heresy; so my label of them as “heretics” is not a personal attack, but an assessment of their theological position.)
John Y: My point about the compromise with Arminians was due to the syllogism set up by Walls in his video. It is more logically consistent to say that God does not love the non-elect than to try to distinguish between different types of love for the elect and non-elect. That was the point Walls was making and I think he is right about that.
LikeLike
Here is a quote from a well-known Edwardsian Calvinist about mercy:
“Mercy even with us is an optional virtue; we do not have to be merciful. We usually admire people who are, but we do not say that people must be so. We say everybody must be just. We say, for example, an employer, if he agrees to pay a certain wage, must pay that particular wage. If he does not pay it, then he is unjust and is liable to a lawsuit. All our contracts are based on the integrity and honesty and justice of people with whom we do business. They are actually subject to trials and imprisonment and even execution if they violate their duty of man to man. What about mercy among men? We love it. We admire it. We encourage it. We sometimes practice it. But we do not say mercy is obligatory… If this is true even of human affairs, we can see immediately that God does not have to be merciful. He gave us life and conscience. God has a right to hold us responsible for using them. He has no further obligation to forgive us if we do not. We say that the Judge of all the earth cannot do wrong, but we cannot say that the Judge of all the earth must be merciful.
John Gerstner
The Problem of Pleasure, Soli Deo Gloria, 2002, p. 21
Could it be some faulty soteriology, or perhaps even a false Gospel, that would make someone talk about mercy in this way? Paul exhorts Christians to be merciful to others, not to take vengeance on them. To be more concerned about mercy than justice in our human relations.
LikeLike
John Y:
1) I don’t see what’s logically inconsistent about differentiating between different types of love. We do it all the time between the love we have for a parent, a sibling, a child, a spouse, a friend. Christ and Peter distinguished types of love. Now, it may not be Biblical to say that God views mankind with different types if love, but it’s certainly not illogical.
2) I also find it strange you would have a problem with what Gerstner says about mercy. Mercy, by its very nature, cannot be obligatory. It must be totally voluntary and undeserving. Otherwise it is justice , as Gerstner says. Mercy was not known before the Fall. The Angels knew the wonders of God’s glory and holiness and righteousness. But they knew nothing of His mercy until it was bestowed upon fallen Man.
To argue that God must be merciful is to cede the centre ground to Arminianism.
LikeLike
Alexander:
1) I don’t see what’s logically inconsistent about differentiating between different types of love. We do it all the time between the love we have for a parent, a sibling, a child, a spouse, a friend. Christ and Peter distinguished types of love. Now, it may not be Biblical to say that God views mankind with different types if love, but it’s certainly not illogical.
John Y: I did not show the syllogism that Walls had set up to distinguish the Arminian view of Atonement and the Calvinist one. There were 5 statements in the syllogism. I really need to show what the statements were. I will try to retrieve it from the tape. To make the Calvinist view of the atonement logically consistent one had to make the statement God does not love the non-elect.
2) I also find it strange you would have a problem with what Gerstner says about mercy. Mercy, by its very nature, cannot be obligatory. It must be totally voluntary and undeserving. Otherwise it is justice , as Gerstner says. Mercy was not known before the Fall. The Angels knew the wonders of God’s glory and holiness and righteousness. But they knew nothing of His mercy until it was bestowed upon fallen Man.
To argue that God must be merciful is to cede the centre ground to Arminianism.
John Y: I was not arguing that God must be merciful to sinners. I was arguing that sinners who have received mercy must show mercy to other sinners. God has compassion on whom He will have compassion (those chosen before the foundations of the world- Romans 9-11). Gerstner was arguing that we sinners have no obligation to show mercy to other sinners. We are obligated to relate to each other justly. Paul did not teach that. Christians are obligated to tell of the good news of the Gospel and extend God’s mercy in the call of the Gospel. The elect will be effectually called, the non-elect won’t and most likely will persecute.
LikeLike
Here is the syllogism set up by Walls:
Several days ago, we had a rather energetic discussion on this page in response to classic Calvinist theologian Arthur Pink’s forthright claim that God does not love everyone. Most Calvinists are not so forthright, I observed. By way of seeking further clarity, let me lay bare the logic of Pink’s view and why it is perfectly understandable why he made that claim. Consider the following argument.
1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Truly to love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
3. The well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
4. God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
5. Therefore, all will be saved.
Now I think it is clear that the conclusion of this argument follows from the premises. The argument is not formally valid in stating every premise, but the essential premises are there. (If anyone wants to see the formally valid version, I have spelled it out in my essay “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian Should EVER Be a Compatibilist” that was published last summer in Philosophia Christi). Consequently, anyone who denies universalism and rejects the conclusion, must deny one or more of the premises. So it is not so surprising in light of this argument why Pink said what he did. He simply denied premise one.
Now when I said most Calvinists are not so forthright, I meant that they usually affirm premise one. So they must deny one of the others. One popular strategy is to deny, or fudge, on premise two. One of my favorite examples here is DA Carson, who says he is often asked by young Calvinist pastors whether he tells the unconverted that God loves them. His answer: “OF COURSE I tell the unconverted that God loves them.” Now how does he do this since for all he knows the unconverted he is speaking to are not elect? Well, he distinguishes between the love God gives to all persons and his “selecting” love which is only for the elect. He loves all in the sense that he gives them temporal blessings (“the rain falls on the just and the unjust”), and invites them to believe the gospel (“whosoever will may come”) even if they are not elect and CANNOT come. So, in short, all the unconverted are loved at least in the sense that rain falls on their gardens, so Carson can say, OF COURSE I tell the unconverted God loves them. Now the question is how honest this really is. Is it truly loving to someone to water their garden for 75 or so years before dispatching them to eternal misery for choices they were determined to make? If Carson were clear what he means when he assures the unconverted that God loves ALL of them, would anyone buy it? So in short, Calvinists like Carson affirm premise 1, but subtly deny premise 2. And I would argue that anyone who denies 2 will end up denying 1 also.
The other move Calvinists can make is to deny premise 4. They can admit that SO FAR AS THE NATURE OF FREEDOM IS CONCERNED God could save all persons, since freedom and determinism are compatible on their view. But perhaps God can’t save everyone for other reasons. Like what? Well, a classic answer given by Calvin, Aquinas, and Piper is that God would not be fully glorified if some were not damned. So, ironically, God needs evil and sin fully to glorify himself, fully to be God. God is more glorified in determining some people “freely” to sin and blaspheme, and then punishing them forever, than he would be by determining them “freely” to worship and obey him. This doesn’t sound so good when you think about it, and more importantly does not sound like the God of love who seeks out the 100th lost sheep and rejoices when a sinner repents. So perhaps it makes sense why Pink and others just deny premise 1 rather than resort to denying 2 or 4.
LikeLike
John Y: I was not arguing that God must be merciful to sinners. I was arguing that sinners who have received mercy must show mercy to other sinners. God has compassion on whom He will have compassion (those chosen before the foundations of the world- Romans 9-11). Gerstner was arguing that we sinners have no obligation to show mercy to other sinners. We are obligated to relate to each other justly. Paul did not teach that. Christians are obligated to tell of the good news of the Gospel and extend God’s mercy in the call of the Gospel. The elect will be effectually called, the non-elect won’t and most likely will persecute.
John Y: And even if the non-elect persecute we are still obligated to relate to them in a merciful way because we were shown mercy by God. We are commanded not to take vengeance, to overcome evil with good. We should do this but we often don’t.
LikeLike
John Y: Apologies I misunderstood your point on mercy.
On the love issues: it strikes me he is viewing love very much from a human perspective: what does love mean for humans. And he assumes we can transpose that same psychological understanding onto God. I think he needs to argue why that is so rather than just taking it for granted. Until he does so his five step argument falls down on point 2.
And on point 4: I would agree that the Fall by allowing for God to show mercy allowed for Him to show an attribute He could not have shown had all men obeyed Him. And He is also able to show His justice. (I’m loathe to say I agree with Piper, so I shan’t.) However I’m not going to get into a supra/intra debate.
It’s a bit convenient that he uses Pink as his reference. Don’t get me wrong: I love his Sovereignty of God (the uncut edition!). But Pink is a particular case. He didn’t subscribe to infant Baptism. He had issues with every church he came into contact with. He should really cite a number of theologians on this.
LikeLike
Good work John Yeazel!
LikeLike
Oops! Sorry Johnn Yeazel, I should have said “good work Geoff and Todd”.
I have yet to hear McMark deal with God saying he loved all of Israel. Psssst McMark, we know that not all of Israel was of the elect, YET God was a loving husband to all of them.
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Apparently presidents like “The Wire” also
LikeLike
Todd,
Ding a ling.
LikeLike
Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is truly informative. I going to watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
LikeLike