# What does God love in us?



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

When God sets his love on us, does he love something in us or merely a reflection of himself? Or, something else?

Also when scripture says Christ died for us, was that motivated upon something in us or outside of us?


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 13, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> When God sets his love on us, does he love something in us or merely a reflection of himself? Or, something else?
> 
> Also when scripture says Christ died for us, was that motivated upon something in us or outside of us?



God chooses to love us for His own reasons, because of His good pleasure, not because there is something in us that is lovable. He loves while we are unlovable. 

One could argue (and some do) that God loves the image of Himself in us, but that doesn't explain why He sets His love on some and not on others. See the WCF and/or the LCBF. 

Christ absolutely did not die for us based on any motivation lying in us -Arminians consistenly argue this, but it is patently false. He died for the elect because He covenanted with the Father to do so, to accomplish His good pleasure.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

But doesn't Jesus exemplify his own words when he says "greater love has no one than this: that he lays down his life for his friends." ? it seems here that his death is motivated on his love for people. Love looks at the other in an I-Thou relationship. this is one the main Christian arguments against monism. So God's love for us must in some way be a love FOR US. Am i way off on this?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2011)

Look at Deuteronomy 7:7,8.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

I understand that the initial choice to love cannot come from anything in us. My question is: if man possesses nothing that is loved, how can it be said that he is loved at all? Does not love require two parties?


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 13, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> But doesn't Jesus exemplify his own words when he says "greater love has no one than this: that he lays down his life for his friends." ? it seems here that his death is motivated on his love for people. Love looks at the other in an I-Thou relationship. this is one the main Christian arguments against monism. So God's love for us must in some way be a love FOR US. Am i way off on this?



With all due respect, Dennis, yes, I think you are way off on this. There can be nothing in us as individuals that Christ zeroes in on and says "I love you because you are lovely in your own person." Ruben's pointer is right on the mark. God did not choose Israel because they were a mighty, numerous or particularly attractive nation, but because it was His will to do so. He loved Israel with a particular love because it was His desire to do so, not because of anything in them. Has God changed?

Are you prepared to say that God elects because there is something in individuals that draws Him to those individuals as opposed to the other individuals He could have chosen instead?


----------



## Stargazer65 (Oct 13, 2011)

When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Rom 5:6-8

He loved us for the purpose of demonstrating his love, not for something in us.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

The phrases "toward us" and "for us" are the very phrases that puzzle me. Who's the US, if in fact the stuff that is loved is completely outside us?


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

Todd I don't want to confuse election and love, unless scripture bids us do that. And perhaps it does. We are taught, "in love he predestined us. ." Does he love us BY electing us? Or is one of them logically prior? I would think he loves first prior to electing us, but i'm not sure. Thanks for any help u can offer.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 13, 2011)

In my estimation, Dennis raises a rather important, albeit difficult, question.

We know this: those whom he foreknew (foreloved, we could render this), he predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. And all other saving benefits follow thereupon (Romans 8:29-30).

We are also told, depending on how we translate it, that "in love, he predestined us" (Ephesians 1:4-5). This is a vast mystery, indicating that He has eternally loved His own. 

Now, we need to be careful here and say this: while we know from some things that good brothers have cited above that God did not love us and choose us because of our intrinsic worth, yet God is never arbitrary or capricious. I mention this because, in giving expression to the fact that God did not love and choose us because we were better than others or possessed intrinsic virtues, we must be careful not to render God irrational. I have heard some say something like "There is no reason that God chose us over others." Wrong. He chose us because He loved us. His reason for loving us is hidden in the counsel of His will but He did indeed love us. The Scriptures just cited make this clear. 

What we want to say is that He did not chose us for reasons known to us but for reasons known to Him. It is not correct to imply that God randomly chose us--He does nothing that way--and could as well have chosen others. It's not as if God put his hand in a barrel and drew out our names and we thus became the chosen. No. God loved us for reasons known to Him and because of that, He chose us in Christ. 

More could be said but that might be sufficient for now.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Oct 13, 2011)

Most of the confusion existing today concerning God's love is due to _various definitions_ of love. I personally find Turretin's simplistic definition of _doing good to somebody_ the best. Also, this narrow definition should make us realize that when we are talking about God's love, we are not talking about an _emotion_. Love, real love, is _not_ an emotion. Our culture confuses affection (emotion) with love (verb). The Bible does not speak of God "having" love as if it is a substance or emotion. Rather, it speaks of God "loving" meaning a kind of action. We are commanded to love God and neighbor. That is not a command to have emotions for them. That is a command to acts toward them in a particular way.


----------



## JP Wallace (Oct 13, 2011)

Samuel is right on. True love is not responsive either in us (properly) but especially in God....after all God IS love (and always has been even before he created anything). Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church - sacrificially, pre-emptively not responsively. If a wife shows no love for her husband he is still to love her. Cf. Hosea.

Therefore God's love for us or anything does not require anything outside of himself.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 13, 2011)

God's election and His love are in accord with all His attributes: His unchangeability, His wisdom, His holiness, His goodness, His justice and His truth.

But God has not set His love on you or me because we were more loveable than others.

God wanted freely to love us, and to become one of the sons of men in dying for His people:



> then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his [fn] delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man. (Pr 8:30-31, ESV)





> Most of the confusion existing today concerning God's love is due to various definitions of love. I personally find Turretin's simplistic definition of doing good to somebody the best. Also, this narrow definition should make us realize that when we are talking about God's love, we are not talking about an emotion. Love, real love, is not an emotion. Our culture confuses affection (emotion) with love (verb). The Bible does not speak of God "having" love as if it is a substance or emotion. Rather, it speaks of God "loving" meaning a kind of action. We are commanded to love God and neighbor. That is not a command to have emotions for them. That is a command to acts toward them in a particular way.



I think it would be going too far to say that God has no affection for His people nor that His people's love for Him should be absent of affection. We are just saying that God doesn't have affection for His people because they are more wonderful than those who are not His people. 

Love consists of allegiance, affection and action.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I understand that the initial choice to love cannot come from anything in us. My question is: if man possesses nothing that is loved, how can it be said that he is loved at all? Does not love require two parties?



God sovereignly determines to love - to communicate good in various degrees: existence, temporal blessings, eternal election, ultimately, Himself. He loves us, precisely because He loves us: no cause can be assigned for the will of God. Calvin has well taught us that we are to seek for no higher reason than the will of God

If I understand your question it has to do with the object of that love - on what does that love terminate? Well obviously it terminates on us, even if it has to call us into existence to do so. And that love does make us lovely - just consider Ephesians 5:25ff or reflect that God is said to have put His beauty upon Jerusalem. What worth you have is a result of God creating you, specifically in His own image, and then calling and sanctifying you, restoring that image and ultimately glorifying you. But God's love isn't based on those things, because those things are the effects of God's love. 

Perhaps the parallel with creation is instructive. Everything was made out of nothing - but that doesn't mean everything is _nothing_, as though _nothing_ were the constituent substance out of which it was crafted. So it isn't that man possesses something that is loved - man is something that is loved. At the uttermost core of your being, the most fundamental point of your identity, is that you are a receiving of the goodness of God in making you exist.


----------



## Hilasmos (Oct 13, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Most of the confusion existing today concerning God's love is due to _various definitions_ of love. I personally find Turretin's simplistic definition of _doing good to somebody_ the best. Also, this narrow definition should make us realize that when we are talking about God's love, we are not talking about an _emotion_. Love, real love, is _not_ an emotion. Our culture confuses affection (emotion) with love (verb). The Bible does not speak of God "having" love as if it is a substance or emotion. Rather, it speaks of God "loving" meaning a kind of action. We are commanded to love God and neighbor. That is not a command to have emotions for them. That is a command to acts toward them in a particular way.



*1 Cor 10:3: If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.*

This verse seems to indicate otherwise. Love is an emotion/affection of the heart.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Samuel is right on. True love is not responsive either in us (properly) but especially in God....after all God IS love (and always has been even before he created anything). Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church - sacrificially, pre-emptively not responsively. If a wife shows no love for her husband he is still to love her. Cf. Hosea.
> 
> Therefore God's love for us or anything does not require anything outside of himself.



Pastor Wallace, I believe here you may overstate the case: we love God because He first loved us. Human love is meant to be responsive to the divine. Of course within the sphere of human relationships, though our experience is mixed (e.g., most of us were loved by our parents before we loved them), yet our duty is to love in that pre-emptive way.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Oct 13, 2011)

He loves us because he loves Jesus Christ.

In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. [Eph 1]

Too often our individual salvation is seen myopically, as if this is all God is up to. It is God giving a chosen people to his Son as the ends of his plan. Our salvation and election is the means. Why has God chosen some and not others? The Lord knows, but it is certainly nothing in us but everything in Jesus.

All that the Father gives me will come to me...

...to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,


----------



## JP Wallace (Oct 13, 2011)

Ruben

Yes you're right I was referring to our duty to love our wives etc. - you've written it better (i.e more clearly)! God of course is due our love not only out of duty but because He is our loving Creator, gracious Lord and Saviour etc....in that sense, in that relationship our love is responsive.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Oct 13, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> > Most of the confusion existing today concerning God's love is due to various definitions of love. I personally find Turretin's simplistic definition of doing good to somebody the best. Also, this narrow definition should make us realize that when we are talking about God's love, we are not talking about an emotion. Love, real love, is not an emotion. Our culture confuses affection (emotion) with love (verb). The Bible does not speak of God "having" love as if it is a substance or emotion. Rather, it speaks of God "loving" meaning a kind of action. We are commanded to love God and neighbor. That is not a command to have emotions for them. That is a command to acts toward them in a particular way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said God has no affection for His people, or that we are not commanded to have affections toward God. There are times when the Bible assigns emotions to God and demands affections from us, but that is a different discussion than when talking about love.

---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------




Hilasmos said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the confusion existing today concerning God's love is due to _various definitions_ of love. I personally find Turretin's simplistic definition of _doing good to somebody_ the best. Also, this narrow definition should make us realize that when we are talking about God's love, we are not talking about an _emotion_. Love, real love, is _not_ an emotion. Our culture confuses affection (emotion) with love (verb). The Bible does not speak of God "having" love as if it is a substance or emotion. Rather, it speaks of God "loving" meaning a kind of action. We are commanded to love God and neighbor. That is not a command to have emotions for them. That is a command to acts toward them in a particular way.
> ...



I don't think the issue here is a lack of emotion/affection, but a wrong _intention_. Although love may be _accompanied with_ emotions/affections, we must not make the assumption that they are part of the _essence_ of love.

Many people (like John Piper) seem to make the same kind of mistake in assuming that emotions/affections (delight in God) are part of the _essence_ of faith, when it is not and cannot be. Now, again, faith may be _accompanied with_ emotions/affections, but that doesn't make it a part of its _essence_.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2011)

yoyoceramic said:


> He loves us because he loves Jesus Christ.
> 
> In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. [Eph 1]
> 
> ...



It is also a staple of Reformed theology (in distinction from the Lutherans) that Christ is not the cause of election, nor of the love of God: the mission of Christ was an effect of God's love, not its foundation.

Pastor Wallace, I think Psalm 116 is a beautiful place to consider along the lines of what you said: "I love the Lord _because_." It is no low point of the Psalmist's piety that God's attention had won his heart.


----------



## Hilasmos (Oct 13, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I don't think the issue here is a lack of emotion/affection, but a wrong _intention_. Although love may be _accompanied with_ emotions/affections, we must not make the assumption that they are part of the _essence_ of love.



Yet you were articulating a definition of love as "doing good to somebody." 1 Cor 13:3 indicates you could make great personal sacrifices which would do great good, and yet lack love. The issue in 1 Cor 10:13 is lack of love, and you are saying the issue is lack of intention. So am I to conclude that to lack love is to lack right intention? 

If so, this still speaks to the emotions/affections of the heart, as intention is an attitude toward the expected effects of your action. Attitudes are emotionally charged. 

Jesus said, if you love me you will keep my commandments. Actions follow and are produced by love, they do not define it.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Oct 13, 2011)

py3ak said:


> It is also a staple of Reformed theology (in distinction from the Lutherans) that Christ is not the cause of election, nor of the love of God: the mission of Christ was an effect of God's love, not its foundation.



Amen, thank you for that important clarification.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

Thanks for the helpful posts brothers. I think that in our effort to safeguard God's sovereignty, there are tendencies to obliterate things that exist, which God may delight in. Of course, there is nothing in us, that we can take credit for, if it happened to be that God loved an object for the objects qualities, it was always God himself that created that cultivated that quality in the being. 



py3ak said:


> God sovereignly determines to love - to communicate good in various degrees: existence, temporal blessings, eternal election, ultimately, Himself. He loves us, precisely because He loves us: no cause can be assigned for the will of God. Calvin has well taught us that we are to seek for no higher reason than the will of God



I appreciate the precision in your words: no cause _can be assigned_ for God's willing to love. But, as Alan pointed out above, God _may_ very well have reasons to love that we are not aware of. For example, he may have planned the creation of his elect to possess particular qualities which are particularly delightful to him. We do not know these deep counsels of God, so we will not speculate. But our safeguarding the deep things of God should not run us to the other extreme of making too strong a negative assertion about God's reasons.

Two branching thoughts:
1. could it be that in the philosophical milieu of the Reformers, pure, unadulterated WILL was seen as the ultimate measure of glory? In our day, the philosophical mindset has shifted such that relationality, and the consideration of others is the measure of glory.

2. It's interesting to note that in Deut 7, it seems that God chose the nation of Israel, and THEN set his love on them. But in Eph 1, with regard to the church in Christ, he seems to have loved them, and THEN predestined them. Could there be a distinction here??


----------



## NB3K (Oct 13, 2011)

Answer #1: Nothing. For there is nothing in us for him to love. All that we have is sin, and God hates sin.

Answer #2: He loves what he has given us, namely Christ! It is only through Christ that God can love sinners. Therefore God loves what He has given to us and that is His one and only Son Jesus Christ!


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 13, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Answer #1: Nothing. For there is nothing in us for him to love. All that we have is sin, and God hates sin.
> 
> Answer #2: He loves what he has given us, namely Christ! It is only through Christ that God can love sinners. Therefore God loves what He has given to us and that is His one and only Son Jesus Christ!



See, here's my point. You've obliterated existence. Scripture is clear that God loves US. That God has chosen to use language implies that language is meaningful to us. But for all of what language is and means, I don't see how your statements could possibly uphold the notion that God actually loves us.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 13, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Thanks for the helpful posts brothers. I think that in our effort to safeguard God's sovereignty, there are tendencies to obliterate things that exist, which God may delight in. Of course, there is nothing in us, that we can take credit for, if it happened to be that God loved an object for the objects qualities, it was always God himself that created that cultivated that quality in the being.



But if the question is raised "Why does God delight in this", the answer is always going to be the same. When we come to the will of God we have reached that than which there is nothing higher. I've quoted Calvin on this point several times already on the board, so I'll mix it up a little by quoting Francis de Sales:



> O Theotimus! my friend, never, no never, must we permit our minds to be carried away by this mad whirlwind, nor expect to find a better reason of God's will than his will itself, which is sovereignly reasonable, yea, the reason of all reasons, the rule of all goodness, the law of all equity.





steadfast7 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > God sovereignly determines to love - to communicate good in various degrees: existence, temporal blessings, eternal election, ultimately, Himself. He loves us, precisely because He loves us: no cause can be assigned for the will of God. Calvin has well taught us that we are to seek for no higher reason than the will of God
> ...



It's a curious method to avoid speculation by raising an entirely speculative point! I understand Dr. Strange's desire to assert (in the fine company of Turretin) that God's will is not unreasonable: but God's will is, as Francis remarked, _the reason of all reasons_. 
But analyze it a little more closely. God determined that people He chose would have characteristics in which He particularly delighted: that's no speculation. That's the simple teaching that whom predestinated He also glorified. But since you acknowledge that we have nothing we have not received, since you admit that it is only God who makes one to differ from another, it is not logic to hold that there was something in people apart from God that drew God's attention. The point of the doctrine of sovereign election isn't that the elect and the reprobate are identical; it's that it's the decree of God that puts all differences between them.



steadfast7 said:


> Two branching thoughts:
> 1. could it be that in the philosophical milieu of the Reformers, pure, unadulterated WILL was seen as the ultimate measure of glory? In our day, the philosophical mindset has shifted such that relationality, and the consideration of others is the measure of glory.
> 
> 2. It's interesting to note that in Deut 7, it seems that God chose the nation of Israel, and THEN set his love on them. But in Eph 1, with regard to the church in Christ, he seems to have loved them, and THEN predestined them. Could there be a distinction here??



Shifts in philosophical mindset don't, logically speaking, have any impact on what the truth is. Jung read the book of Job and propounded the theory that Job is morally superior to God, knows it, but keeps his mouth shut on that score only slyly hinting at it because God is the more powerful (though apparently not the more intelligent). This is not a Biblical method of reasoning: Paul reasons from the fact that God is judge of the world to the conclusion that God is just (Romans 3:5,6). We start with God: we let Him be true, and _every_ man a liar. We listen to the challenge of Paul reminding us that we don't have the stature to reply against God. With Job, we put our hand over our mouth. With Christ, we rejoice that God the Father has done what pleased Him. We let His will be the rule, the determiner of good and evil; not to do so, ultimately, is to fall into the mistake of Adam and Eve, to believe that good and evil can be determined without reference to God's will.

All of that to say, that shifts in what the world values don't actually matter when it comes to our theology: we must take our stand with Job and Paul and Christ.

I doubt you can make such a distinction. Not only are choosing and loving intimately related, but Deuteronomy shows that God loves, _because he loves_. If you quote with elisions the point made in the text is inescapably clear:
_The LORD did not set his love upon you ... But because the LORD loved you...._ Compare Hosea 14:4 where God resolves to love them freely, or 1 Samuel 12:22 where the choice of a people is predicated on God's good pleasure. The _beneplacitum_ of God is the ultimate ground of election and of love.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 13, 2011)

This is a good discussion. 

Even as we should not depict God as irrational (or reduce him to mere will--voluntarism)--"there's no reason God loves us" (there is, known to Him)--so we should not make the mistake, a quite serious one, of reducing man to sin.

To say, as was said above, "there is nothing in us for him to love. All that we have is sin, and God hates sin," is quite simply untrue. Even fallen unregenerate man is not reduced simply to sin (the fall does not alter man's ontology but is ethical--rendering him guilty and corrupt in every faculty, not absolutely depraved). If all I am is sin, what will I be in the new heavens and new earth? Is there no "me" there, only sin? When I am glorified, it will be me who is glorified, and if I am nothing but sin, then there will be nothing there. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. 

God is love; God does not choose to be love, any more than he chooses to be just. It's an essential property. Is He free in the exercise of it? Yes. Could He have chosen to save none? According to his justice, yes: we deserve His wrath and curse. But He is not simply a God of justice. He is a God of love. Romans 9 makes it clear that He exercises both love and wrath. It is fitting, given who He is. 

Athanasius, in his _De Incarnatione_, also shows how it is fitting that, though man fell, God is not the kind of God who would only condemn (according to his justice) but would also save (according to his love). I think that we can, by stressing only that He must be just, sell short how loving our God is. 

And we must realize that His loving is a loving of us and a choosing of us. Why? He loves us because He loves us. But it is not arbitrary or accidental, as if he could have as well picked others, as if his choosing of us was "blind," like throwing darts at a dart board and hitting our name. No, this is the "high mystery of predestination" (WCF 3.8) and it is for our abundant assurance and consolation. Everyone on this board should know that if there hope and trust is in Christ alone, God has eternally loved and chosen them in Christ, setting his love and favor upon them because they are the darlings of his heart. How amazing and unspeakably humbling! How comforting and assuring!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 14, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Deuteronomy shows that God loves, because he loves.


 Or rather that he IS love. but then again, he does not love without distinction and exactly the same ways all the time with every being. I also wouldn't say that it's pure will that causes him to love. Surely in the Godhead, there are genuine attributes that motivates love for one another. Scripture says that the Father loves the Son _because_ he lays down his life. That is one line of evidence that will is not the only motivation.


----------



## NB3K (Oct 14, 2011)

There is absolutely nothing IN US that would motivate God the Father to Love us as He Loves His Son. This is why we must be recreated in the SON'S IMAGE. In our own image we can only stir up His Wrath and Holy Justice and His Righteous Anger! Oh wretched man that I am who will save me from this body of death? Thanks be to Christ!!!!!


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Oct 14, 2011)

Hilasmos said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the issue here is a lack of emotion/affection, but a wrong _intention_. Although love may be _accompanied with_ emotions/affections, we must not make the assumption that they are part of the _essence_ of love.
> ...



Thank you for correcting my flawed view of love. That saying from Jesus settles the issue. In my definition it would read, "If you keep my commandments (i.e., do good to me) you will keep my commandments." Doesn't make very much sense. It seems, then, that love is different from faith in that it _includes_ _as part of its essence _emotion/affection toward the object of love.


----------



## Stargazer65 (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> The phrases "toward us" and "for us" are the very phrases that puzzle me. Who's the US, if in fact the stuff that is loved is completely outside us?



I don't know Dennis. But this is one of those topics where I have trouble comprehending the nuances, and I'm sure if I say too much...something stupid will come out.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Or rather that he IS love. but then again, he does not love without distinction and exactly the same ways all the time with every being. I also wouldn't say that it's pure will that causes him to love. Surely in the Godhead, there are genuine attributes that motivates love for one another. Scripture says that the Father loves the Son because he lays down his life. That is one line of evidence that will is not the only motivation.



We are speaking of God's love to man. This is _ad extra_ and is not necessary. Love is a function of the volition: there is nothing else to attribute it to.

Love has been distinguished into benevolence, beneficence, and complacency. In speaking of election and the mission of Christ on our behalf, we are speaking of benevolence. In speaking of the Lord taking pleasure in His people, or the Father loving the Son in His capacity as Mediator because of His work, we are speaking of complacency.

Dr. Strange, I am sure you are using "choose" appropriately in the sense of "will freely". But to prevent a possible misimpression that therefore God's existence is unrelated to His will, I should point out that Reformed theology does speak of God willing Himself necessarily. 

Jason, I think you are confusing two separate issues. No one is saying that we are attractive to God (at least, I hope no one is saying that); but why did Christ redeem an elect people? Was it because God hated them? Surely that answers itself; God's love is antecedent to the mission of Christ. In that way, all glory is given to God because the absolute foundation of redemption is His mere good pleasure. 
Of course if you are thinking in terms of complacency, it is true that the work of Christ was necessary for God to be pleased with us. But the determination to _make us pleasing_ is itself benevolence.


----------



## moral necessity (Oct 14, 2011)

"Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated." We have to remember that love is a descriptive term of God's favor, or lack thereof, towards his creation. When he blesses them, he is said to have "loved" them. When he removes his favor from them, he is said to "hate" them. The origin of his action is himself. The description of his action towards his creatures is "love" or "hate".

Blessings!


----------



## py3ak (Oct 14, 2011)

Geerhardus Vos, speaking on Ephesians 2, has some pertinent comments:



> This love was the foundation of everything and was before everything. It is useless to ask after its origin. It came from the inscrutable being of God and embraced the objects of its free choice even before they had existence. It determined to make them in such a way as to reflect that love.





> Moreover, a distinction has to be made between divine and human love. The latter loves because it beholds and admires something beautiful and loveable in its object. Not so with God. He loved his own before the mountains came to be, before the earth and the world were brought forth. it was not at all that he knew, by virtue of his eternal foreknowledge, that they would be loveable. Oh no! All that they would be in this respect, he himself had decided to make them. He saw them dead in their sins and crimes, without form or glory, covered with their own blood. This is the great mystery that no man can solve -- how God could love sinners, without there being anything in them worthy of his love. Mysterious, eternal love of God, you are beyond comprehension!


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 14, 2011)

Dennis, great question. I'm not sure I have answers, but I do have musings.

God loves every person and every part of the material creation. I think that follows easily from the Scripture, from the nature of God as love, and from the choice to create itself. That does not mean that God's love is the same toward every person and creature, or that he is obligated to act in a certain way toward them. However, God cannot *not* love, for that would compromise his nature: God is love.

I think how you framed the question is important. You did not ask about what caused loved, but what _is_ loved. Or, _toward_ what is God's love? My answer would be that God's love for people is toward two things: first, the metaphysical good that we are by virtue of our creation; and second, the moral virtue that God himself provides through salvation. The first is the anchor-point for God's love toward all people, the second for his love for the elect.


----------



## seajayrice (Oct 14, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Dennis, great question. I'm not sure I have answers, but I do have musings.
> 
> *God loves every person and every part of the material creation.* I think that follows easily from the Scripture, from the nature of God as love, and from the choice to create itself. That does not mean that God's love is the same toward every person and creature, or that he is obligated to act in a certain way toward them. However, God cannot *not* love, for that would compromise his nature: God is love.
> 
> I think how you framed the question is important. You did not ask about what caused loved, but what _is_ loved. Or, _toward_ what is God's love? My answer would be that God's love for people is toward two things: *first, the metaphysical good that we are by virtue of our creation*; and second, the moral virtue that God himself provides through salvation. The first is the anchor-point for God's love toward all people, the second for his love for the elect.




So the hell-bound are experiencing God's love? I don't understand?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Oct 14, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Dennis, great question. I'm not sure I have answers, but I do have musings.
> ...




In a measure, yes. From God's goodness flows His love by which He communicates Himself to the creature and does good to it, but in diverse ways and _degrees_. The hell-bound don't receive the _covenantal_ love of God that promises eternal life, but they still get to eat of the _crumbs_ of the children of God that fall from the table of God's _providence_.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 14, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> When God sets his love on us, does he love something in us or merely a reflection of himself?



I just realized what I should have said from the beginning. Why is there an opposition between something in us (or better) who we are and a reflection of himself? Our definition is that we are made in the image of God.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 15, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieJ said:
> ...




I think while they were on earth, they received the general beneficience of God that lets rain fall on the wicked and the righteous alike. In hell, they are receiving the fury and vengence of God.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 15, 2011)

py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > When God sets his love on us, does he love something in us or merely a reflection of himself?
> ...



so does that mean now God's love is drawn toward the object rather than being guided by the force of his will alone?


----------



## MarieP (Oct 15, 2011)

Ezekiel 16


> 1 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: “Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. 5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born.
> 
> 6 “And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.
> 
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Oct 15, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > steadfast7 said:
> ...



No, of course not. It just means that the way your original question was expressed set up a false opposition, either as though we were something independently of God, or as though being a reflection of God was not what makes us human.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 15, 2011)

I understand all the proper qualifications to this question, many of which Ruben has helpfully offered.

But, if I may, this is too important a question--even if not put in the best of ways--to be answered in an unsatisfying fashion. This is not, in other words, a question that we should answer only, or even primarily, in an abstract sort of way, though recognizing that we must make all the appropriate theological and philosophical points.

Since our knowledge of God is analogical, perhaps this is a helpful, and more concrete way to get at it: God loves us perfectly and completely, choosing us in Christ simply because He did love us. I loved and chose my wife. Why her? Well, I could mention many wonderful qualities having to do with character, looks, personality, skills, etc. But it is not the case that my wife possesses these in some objective way more than any other woman in the world. We play little games--and that's fine as we understand what we are doing--and say "No one cooks better than you, no one is lovelier than you, etc." but we do not really mean that in some objective way. In fact, no woman with any sense would be satisfied even in summing up all her husband's greatest singing of her praises. 

Why? Think of it this way: My wife asks me "Why do you love me?" After enumerating all her wonderful qualities, however, she remains unsatisfied...until, perhaps in desparation at realizing that all that I've said is not enough, I blurt out "I love you because I love you." Ah, that's what she was waiting for. Many of those qualities that I mentioned may fade (with disease) or disappear altogether (due to a horrible accident). But I still love her. Why? Because I love *her*, not her qualities. 

Love in this sense always has a mysterious quality to it. It does for a husband and wife. I love my wife because I love my wife. And there's something irreducible about that. God loves us, Dennis, because He loves us. We are sinners through and through. Yet He eternally loved me and eternally chose me. He always will love me. Even as we do for better or worse, in sickness and in health, though quite imperfectly and sometimes not at all. Yet His love will never fail.

It's also like one friend saying to another:"you know you have may wonderful qualities, but I love you for you." I say that to my wife. That's because I am in the image of God and reflect something of his way of loving. Again, very poorly and sadly. Yet, if I can love my wife because I love her and love a friend for himself (and not just because he can do me some good), surely we mirror our great God who loves us incomparably in spite of who we are, indeed, but who loves us nonetheless and who does so simply because He does. 
May this love of God sustain you all and take you with joy unspeakable and full of glory into the Lord's Day.

Peace, 
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Oct 15, 2011)

Excellent words, Professor Strange, and a valuable exposition.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 16, 2011)

Excellent exposition, Dr. Strange. This thread has been a tremendous blessing to me.

On a personal note, I had the incredible opportunity to sit with two sisters from my church this weekend and expound the doctrines of grace to them through the scriptures. It was a two hour ordeal exposing their Arminianism by the light of God's word, but it was the love of God in his electing grace that I wanted to emphasize. Praise to be God, they were won over by Ephesians 1 and flooded with tears. One sister remarked, most perceptively, "For all these years, I've been obeying the Great Commandments in the wrong order."


----------



## py3ak (Oct 16, 2011)

That's great to hear, Dennis. Paul wrote about the comfort of the Scriptures (Romans 15:4), and so it is one effect of the truth properly apprehended to minister to our comfort.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 16, 2011)

I rejoice in your encouraging report, Dennis. 

Ephesians 1:3-14 is perhaps the most magnificent sentence in Scripture. Pure gold.

Peace,
Alan


----------

