# Gods love towards those in hell?



## earl40

I have read that it is the love of God (as creatures He creates) that keeps sinners from going poof in hell. OK a rough paraphrase. In other words, it is better for to be conscience in hell than to not exist.

So how do we reconcile this idea with what Jesus said?

Mark 14:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.


----------



## Peairtach

*Earl*


> I have read that it is the love of God (as creatures He creates) that keeps sinners from going poof in hell.



I don't think we should speak lightly on the subject of Hell.

Is this a biblical idea, anyway?


----------



## raekwon

earl40 said:


> I have read that it is the love of God (as creatures He creates) that keeps sinners from going poof in hell. OK a rough paraphrase. In other words, it is better for to be conscience in hell than to not exist.



Where'd you read that? The opposite notion (eternal punishment being worse than annihilation) seems to have far more biblical support.


----------



## MW

From the Scottish reformed tradition, Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (1803), p. 550:

There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies; makes the sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causeth dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors; as Christ teacheth us, Mat. 5:43, 44, 45, 46,47, 48. *Nor doth God miscarry in this love*; *he desires the eternal being of damned angels and men*; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance, and, with longanimity and forbearance, suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity; yet does not the Lord's general love fall short of what he willeth to them.


----------



## lynnie

Rev Winzer, I am suitably impressed with you pulling that quote out!


----------



## MW

> Would it be accurate to say, then, that God's love for each and every one of His creatures is not mutually exclusive to His hatred for the number of the reprobate?



That is correct. God's love is effectually extended towards His creation as they stand in the relation of creatures. At the same time, as God has an eternal purpose for each and every one, His saving grace is effectually extended or effectually withheld. The withholding of grace is the effect of God's judicial hatred. The point being made in the quoted portion is that there is no love of God towards men which is ineffectual. It effects what is intended in each and every case. Consider Psalm 136. God's loving and loyal commitment to His creation is perfectly consistent with His judicial punishment extended towards the enemies of Israel. The punishment is seen to be the means by which God continues to act for the purification of His creation and the perfection of His redemptive purpose.


----------



## OPC'n

No where in Scripture does it say that God loves those in hell. His wrath, which never wanes giving them a moment's reprieve, is evident of his hatred and lack of any type or degree of love. In fact, if he did have even one once of love for them, he would relent his wrath and utterly destroy them from existence in order to give them reprieve. As we all know, he will do no such thing bc their unforgiven sins are so great against him that their suffering for eternity will never be able to pay for their crimes against him. Scripture says that God hates the wicked here on earth, and yet, we see acts of kindness towards them which could be seen as a form of love, instead, it is in fact grace they feel in their lives. Yet in hell, no acts of kindness will be found for them only his wrath and removal of grace will they see. God's common grace is abundant here on earth. There are very wicked ppl who enjoy many different things in their lives which brings them joy. Even the most wicked person who has ever lived loved someone in their lives even if it were themselves. They are allowed this enjoyment bc of God's grace towards them which only stores up more and more wrath for them when they do get to hell. In hell they will find *no* pleasure. Even the selfish act of loving themselves will allude them. They will only find torment "day" in and "day" out.


----------



## py3ak

Earl, I am not sure that the words need to be reconciled, because I am not sure that there is any opposition. It is plain that our Lord's words about his betrayer must be taken in a restricted sense: if it were _good_, absolutely, that Judas not have existed, then that is what would have happened. And since his words include the modifier "for that man" we understand that it was ontologically good for Judas to exist, and that God overruled the sinfulness of his existence to bring about a good end. But this means that it is from the standpoint of Judas' experience that it were good not to have been born. Now this would not necessarily have prevented him from existing (in which case the text might not have any relevance to the question of relative preference between annihilation vs. torment), but it would have kept him from doing good or evil, Romans 9:11. I think we can all agree that it is better to be stillborn than to go on to become the instrument of Satan in the betrayal of Christ.

If it can be shown that the text does have reference to non-existence vs. going to hell, I would suggest that the reconciliation may be along lines suggested by Job in chapter 3. When surrounded by sufferings we would sometimes prefer to have had no experience at all, than to have an experience that includes such bitter anguish. And since that cannot be (or we wouldn't be around to express that wish) we at least call for our experience to end. But I wonder if in a sober mind the horror of non-being might not be a stronger force than the horror of agony. It is better that there should be people glorifying God's justice by their damnation than that there should not be such: we know this, because it is what God has decreed. The fact that they disagree, assuming they do, doesn't change the reality: God sees fit to keep them in existence, and that is therefore a good thing to do.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> No where in Scripture does it say that God loves those in hell.



Scripture certainly teaches that God does not change and that His tender mercies are over all His works. What is hell that God's love should not be manifested there? Surely love must be a part of the presence of God that makes hell such torment -- a manifestation that sustains life but does not satisfy it.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where in Scripture does it say that God loves those in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture certainly teaches that God does not change and that His tender mercies are over all His works. What is hell that God's love should not be manifested there? Surely love must be a part of the presence of God that makes hell such torment -- a manifestation that sustains life but does not satisfy it.
Click to expand...


I disagree with you. (i do agree with Ruben that it is good that he made vessels of wrath "to show his wrath and to make known his power"). It is true that God does not change. He does not have to change who he is by giving great riches to one person and poverty to the next. For the one, he has given. To the other, he has withheld. Nothing about those actions change who he is. For those in hell, he has withheld his grace love etc, and instead, has poured out his wrath. Nothing about withholding these parts of his being and pouring out his wrath changes who he is. The total lack of his grace, love, mercy etc is what makes hell hell. You believe that he shows them love in hell. Scripturally, how do you see him manifesting his love to them?


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Scripturally, how do you see him manifesting his love to them?



"In Him we live and move and have our being." "His tender mercies are over all His works." Certainly God has rejected the vessels of wrath, but, as creatures, they belong to "the same lump" and stand related to God as creatures to a Creator. It is impossible to consider them as fitted for anything without the recognition of a prior dignity which enables them to be fitted. His love to the work of His own hands must be presupposed in the very concept of "wrath." If God does not consider the vessel to be anything, why does He manifest His justice against it? Worms do not require a process of judgment. If they spoil the vines the gardener exterminates them. It is because of his dignity that man undergoes a judicial process before condemnation. So here: the very fact God enters into this judicial process must be a manifestation of the loving regard He has for His creation. The same applies to the punishments of loss and sense in hell. There must be the capacity to lose and suffer, and this must be adapted to the special condition of man as the work of God's hands.


----------



## rbcbob

For clarification, is this LOVE for those in hell Φιλανθρωπεω or Αγαπάω?


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripturally, how do you see him manifesting his love to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In Him we live and move and have our being." "His tender mercies are over all His works." Certainly God has rejected the vessels of wrath, but, as creatures, they belong to "the same lump" and stand related to God as creatures to a Creator. It is impossible to consider them as fitted for anything without the recognition of a prior dignity which enables them to be fitted. His love to the work of His own hands must be presupposed in the very concept of "wrath." If God does not consider the vessel to be anything, why does He manifest His justice against it? Worms do not require a process of judgment. If they spoil the vines the gardener exterminates them. It is because of his dignity that man undergoes a judicial process before condemnation. So here: the very fact God enters into this judicial process must be a manifestation of the loving regard He has for His creation. The same applies to the punishments of loss and sense in hell. There must be the capacity to lose and suffer, and this must be adapted to the special condition of man as the work of God's hands.
Click to expand...


When all things are views in the perspective of a God-centered ideology, everything falls nicely into place. I'm far from saying that the vessels of wrath are considered as nothing by God. Just the opposite. They are very much apart of his divine plan. Part of God's goodness in who he is IS his wrath. God's wrath isn't an evil thing but a holy part of who he is as you know. Romans 9 states it well *why* God created vessels of wrath. 

What if God, *desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory*

It's all about him and we benefit from him being central in all things. We know and will more in-depth the riches of his glory *bc* he shows his wrath and makes known his power on vessels of wrath. In all this, he is gloried. There's nothing in there which even alludes to some type of love for vessels of wrath bc it's not about mankind it's about God and what he does to show off his glory. His vessels of mercy benefit greatly (more than we can even understand) from all of this.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> There's nothing in there which even alludes to some type of love for vessels of wrath bc it's not about mankind it's about God and what he does to show off his glory.



Again, there is no doubting that God has His eternal purpose for each one, and each one shall serve to manifest His glory either in a way of grace or of justice; but the apostle also speaks of a common mass out of which these vessels are made. This must indicate a loving regard to man in the scheme of creation as the one through whom He will specially fulfil His purpose and manifest His glory. Says John Norton (The Orthodox Evangelist, p. 99), "that common love of God to man, whereby (when we lay equal with the residue of the Creation in our Mother-nothing) he freely gave unto us so excellent a Being after his own Image, far above our fellow creatures, was unspeakably above what is unspeakable."


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in there which even alludes to some type of love for vessels of wrath bc it's not about mankind it's about God and what he does to show off his glory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there is no doubting that God has His eternal purpose for each one, and each one shall serve to manifest His glory either in a way of grace or of justice; but the apostle also speaks of a common mass out of which these vessels are made. This must indicate a loving regard to man in the scheme of creation as the one through whom He will specially fulfil His purpose and manifest His glory. Says John Norton (The Orthodox Evangelist, p. 99), "that common love of God to man, whereby (when we lay equal with the residue of the Creation in our Mother-nothing) he freely gave unto us so excellent a Being after his own Image, far above our fellow creatures, was unspeakably above what is unspeakable."
Click to expand...


I would have to agree with you in terms of mankind here on earth. All of Scripture which speaks of God's mercy and patience and long suffering etc, has to do with mankind that is still on earth. All of God's mercy and patience and long suffering and common grace etc given to the person here on earth only stores up wrath for that person when he finally finds himself in hell. The only thing we can find concerning God's presence in hell is his wrath......no grace, no mercy, no kindness, and no love. All of mankind bear God's image that is true. That does not mean bc of that he holds out a small portion of love for that image bearer. He is enraged with that image bearer bc of the sins that image bearer has committed. There is no peace between the unsaved and God while on earth without Christ. Yet God gives good things to him in order to store up wrath which he will pour out upon him without reservation and without waxing or waning his wrath. In full fury, will he pour out his wrath upon the image bearer who defied him and broke his commandments. With one lump of clay he made vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy in order to show to the vessels of mercy his wrath and power. This is his great and holy providence. The quote from John Norton is of all mankind still here on earth. All of mankind was blessed beyond measure to be God's image bearer, but with that blessing comes responsibilities to God.........to keep his commandments perfectly. No one does. Those in Christ are forgiven and those outside of Christ pay for being lawbreakers in hell by receiving God's wrath and only his wrath.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripturally, how do you see him manifesting his love to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In Him we live and move and have our being." "His tender mercies are over all His works." Certainly God has rejected the vessels of wrath, but, as creatures, they belong to "the same lump" and stand related to God as creatures to a Creator. It is impossible to consider them as fitted for anything without the recognition of a prior dignity which enables them to be fitted. His love to the work of His own hands must be presupposed in the very concept of "wrath." If God does not consider the vessel to be anything, why does He manifest His justice against it? Worms do not require a process of judgment. If they spoil the vines the gardener exterminates them. It is because of his dignity that man undergoes a judicial process before condemnation. So here: the very fact God enters into this judicial process must be a manifestation of the loving regard He has for His creation. The same applies to the punishments of loss and sense in hell. There must be the capacity to lose and suffer, and this must be adapted to the special condition of man as the work of God's hands.
Click to expand...


This is very helpful, Rev Winzer. Thank you.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you Rev. Winzer for your posts on this topic. As at other times, they are a great blessing. If being is not fundamentally a good God bestows, and God is not good as Being Itself in a way that fundamentally shapes all the rest of our creaturely experience, the universe takes on fairly nightmarish proportions.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> If being is not fundamentally a good God bestows, and God is not good as Being Itself in a way that fundamentally shapes all the rest of our creaturely experience, the universe takes on fairly nightmarish proportions.



That speaks right to the heart of the matter. Thankyou, Mrs. Zartman.


----------



## mvdm

Rev.Winzer,

What do you make of Psalm 11:5 which speaks of God's "hatred" of the wicked and that he will pour judgment upon them?

Or Romans 9:13 which says that God "hated" Esau?


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> *Earl*
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that it is the love of God (as creatures He creates) that keeps sinners from going poof in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we should speak lightly on the subject of Hell.
> 
> Is this a biblical idea, anyway?
Click to expand...


I am sorry I disturbed you Richard. I assure you sometimes I can only think of this horrible eternal destination in black comic like terms. That is not good and shall try to cease such ways of expressing this subject as such.


----------



## earl40

> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev.Winzer,
> 
> What do you make of Psalm 11:5 which speaks of God's "hatred" of the wicked and that he will pour judgment upon them?
> 
> Or Romans 9:13 which says that God "hated" Esau?
> 
> 
> 
> It seems from my earlier exchange with Pastor Winzer that he would affirm that God's love and hatred are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So, in one sense, God very much hates Esau, and the wicked, with whom He is angry every day. And, on the other, He loves them as His creatures so much, not wanting to absolve His Creatorship of them, that rather than destroying them, He keeps them in existence eternally.
Click to expand...


Thus my question from what Jesus said that from the perspective of men it would have been BETTER that he had not been born. This In my most humble opinion appears to say that to live in hell is worse than never existing and to reconcile this with God loving a creature just does not seem consistent with real love. I think I am mixing up the human emotion and feelings that we have with how God loves. This no doubt is where I err.


----------



## earl40

> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my question from what Jesus said that from the perspective of men it would have been BETTER that he had not been born. This In my most humble opinion appears to say that to live in hell is worse than never existing and to reconcile this with God loving a creature just does not seem consistent with real love. I think I am mixing up the human emotion and feelings that we have with how God loves. This no doubt is where I err.
> 
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> "Not being born" and "never existing" are not the same thing. If Christ had said "better that had never been conceived," maybe I could follow along better.
Click to expand...



Of course if he were still born he never would have been the one who betrayed Jesus. In other words, it still would have been better if he were born physically dead than to live in hell forever with his degree of punishment that he is experiencing now.


----------



## MW

mvdm said:


> What do you make of Psalm 11:5 which speaks of God's "hatred" of the wicked and that he will pour judgment upon them?
> 
> Or Romans 9:13 which says that God "hated" Esau?



Both texts speak of one in contrast with another. Ps. 11 speaks of the Lord's judicial role as the upholder of the moral foundations of the world, and presents the wicked in contrast with the righteous. Rom. 9 discusses God's eternal and unchanging purpose for individuals within the context of God's promises to Israel. It sets forth a contrast between the reprobate (Esau) and the elect (Jacob). Again, there should be no diminishing of the important truth that God has a specific purpose for each individual and this purpose determines God's relation and action towards them for time and eternity. I was at pains to stress this point in my review of Prof. Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel. As I state in that review, however, reformed divines recognise that God also has a purpose for man as His creation. He has determined to show His goodness towards all in common, and they call this "common love." The main point here is that this love is effectual, not ineffectual, contrary to the claims of those who speak of God desiring things which never come to pass. In one sense "love," like "grace," is an inadequate word because it shares no real affinity with the special, saving love for the elect. In another sense, it is an important concept to retain because it draws attention to (1) the beneficence that is ingrained in the very fabric of creation, (2) that God's hatred must always be understood in judicial terms, and (3) that wrath is thoroughly deserved by the creature.


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> In one sense "love," like "grace," is an inadequate word because it shares no real affinity with the special, saving love for the elect.



Thank you and your response clarifies thing. I think this quoted line hits precisely on the difficulty I have in using the term "love" with respect to those in hell. I am working with a definition of love that I associate with the elect. 

Do you have a link to your review of Murray's work so that I can explore this issue more deeply?


----------



## rbcbob

mvdm said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one sense "love," like "grace," is an inadequate word because it shares no real affinity with the special, saving love for the elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you and your response clarifies thing. I think this quoted line hits precisely on the difficulty I have in using the term "love" with respect to those in hell. I am working with a definition of love that I associate with the elect.
> 
> Do you have a link to your review of Murray's work so that I can explore this issue more deeply?
Click to expand...


Thus my question in post #15 above:


For clarification, is this LOVE for those in hell Φιλανθρωπεω or Αγαπάω?


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Thus my question from what Jesus said that from the perspective of men it would have been BETTER that he had not been born. This In my most humble opinion appears to say that to live in hell is worse than never existing and to reconcile this with God loving a creature just does not seem consistent with real love.



First, it seems there is a leap being made between the temporal (been born), which is explicit in the statement of our Lord, and the eternal (hell), which is being introduced into the statement by means of your question. Secondly, we might be able to apply the principle included in the statement to the eternal state, but we must be careful to respect its limitations. The word "better" is the comparative of "good." This requires us to identify the "good." Is it active, as that which a man is to seek, or passive, as that for which a man exists? In this case it is active. It is better, in terms of what a man should seek for himself, that he were not born. In terms of passive good, being is always considered to be a good in and of itself, and being is always better than non-being; otherwise the ontological argument never would have had even a leg to stand on.


----------



## MW

mvdm said:


> Do you have a link to your review of Murray's work so that I can explore this issue more deeply?



It may be found here (many thanks to Chris Coldwell and Pastor Bacon for making and keeping it available): Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed

See especially the section headed "Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 6:27-36."


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> For clarification, is this LOVE for those in hell Φιλανθρωπεω or Αγαπάω?



I can't see how these terms could reflect a distinction in either the subject loving or the object loved, seeing as they appear to be used co-extensively in terms of God's saving purpose for His people.


----------



## rbcbob

I am not certain but I have understood the former to address God's love for mankind AS such, and the latter focussing upon the elect.


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> I am not certain but I have understood the former to address God's love for mankind AS such, and the latter focussing upon the elect.



Let's have a look. Titus 3:4-7. "God our Saviour" is the subject. Unmerited, efficacious, and complete salvation is the product. "Us" and "we" are the object. The term "anthropos" only intensifies the quality of the kindness. This is more apparent in Acts 28:2, where the unique quality of the kindness is emphasised in the translation. So I would be inclined to conclude that the "love" or "kindness" expressed by "philanthropy" highlights its unique and great quality, but tells us nothing as to the object of it. The context must determine the object, and the context in Titus 3:4-7 is particular.


----------



## rbcbob

> Let's have a look. Titus 3:4-7. "God our Saviour" is the subject. Unmerited, efficacious, and complete salvation is the product. "Us" and "we" are the object. The term "anthropos" only intensifies the quality of the kindness. This is more apparent in Acts 28:2, where the unique quality of the kindness is empφhasised in the translation. So I would be inclined to conclude that the "love" or "kindness" expressed by "philanthropy" highlights its unique and great quality, but tells us nothing as to the object of it. The context must determine the object, and the context in Titus 3:4-7 is particular.



Thanks Matthew, I will take some time to examine this afresh.


----------



## OPC'n

The reformed divines were right to say that God has a "common love or grace" for all of mankind, but from what I have read that common love belongs to those here on earth. You read in Scripture where he states that he sends rain on the just and the unjust etc. His common love/grace is seen everyday through his power of holding order in this world and not allowing utter depravity to consume the reprobate. You even see him heaping up blessings upon them. You see all this here on earth a place where his full fury is restrained. You say that his love is evident to those in hell bc as Josh states your meaning "And, on the other, He loves them as His creatures so much, not wanting to absolve His Creatorship of them, that rather than destroying them, He keeps them in existence eternally.". Yet we do not find any Scripture which supports this idea. There is no Scripture which states or even alludes to the fact that God keeps those in hell in existence bc he loves them and doesn't want to absolve his "Creatorship" of them. He does state why he made them, however. He made them vessels of wrath.....why? So that the vessels of mercy can see the riches of his glory. And what are the riches of his glory? His unmeasureable grace, love, kindness, mercy, etc that he has shown the elect and he does this by showing the elect just the opposite to those in hell...His unmeasureable hatred, wrath, and judgment. There is no rain for the unjust in hell. Just the opposite is taught to us in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man asked Abraham if Lazarus could dip his finger in some water and touch it to his tongue and he was denied this small pleasure. If ever an act of common love were to be seen, it would have been in this parable with Lazarus being allowed to give a small amount of water to the rich man. And if no acts of "common love" are agreed upon here on this thread to exist in hell save that of sustaining them for eternity to bear God's constant and full fury, how can that be interpreted as being "common love" and not hatred? People are sent to hell for one reason: they sinned against a holy God. The sentence pronounced against them is that they would have to pay for these sins. Bearing God's wrath for eternity is how they pay for sinning against a holy God. So God doesn't wipe them out of existence bc he loves them as his creatures whom he created, instead he doesn't wipe them out of existence so that they carry out their sentence in hell which will take eternity.


----------



## OPC'n

> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . as Josh states your meaning . . .
> 
> 
> 
> I made a caveat that such may not be a fully accurate portrayal of Pastor Winzer's position, just so it is clear.
> 
> As for "not find[ing] any Scripture which supports this idea," we also need to consider that a proper hermeneutic does not require any one Scripture explicitly to state a doctrine in order for it to be valid doctrine. In other words, some doctrines can be inferred when considering the Scriptures as a whole, and I believe that is what Rutherford, _et al_. have done. By drawing in all of the Scriptures speaking to God's Creative acts, His love for His creatures as _His_ creatures, etc. then making the connection that He does not want to _un_create them, it could follow that God's love to His creature is such that rather than destroy them, as a consequence of his judging them (which the position is that is an expression of his love), he executes that judgment upon them eternally.
Click to expand...


I agree that one doesn't need a blaring Scripture to make a doctrine, and in fact, doctrines are made by interpreting one Scripture using other Scriptures. I understand that. But why throw out very clear Scriptures which support why God sends ppl to hell, and instead, gather Scriptures which state he loves his creation and also tells us why he loves them (saving love for his elect and common love for the reprobate here on earth) and apply those Scriptures to those in hell and say that's why they exist in hell...bc he loves them too much to wipe them out of existence?


----------



## OPC'n

> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that one doesn't need a blaring Scripture to make a doctrine, and in fact, doctrines are made by interpreting one Scripture using other Scriptures. I understand that. But why throw out very clear Scriptures which support why God sends ppl to hell, and instead, gather Scriptures which state he loves his creation and also tells us why he loves them (saving love for his elect and common love for the reprobate here on earth) and apply those Scriptures to those in hell?
> 
> 
> 
> No one has thrown out any Scriptures. The general question is "Does God love those in hell?" Nowhere has anyone said that God does not hate the wicked, or that they are not in hell because of God's wrath being avenged upon them. All that has been stated is that He doesn't *merely* hate them, and that their continued existence is not *merely* to make known the glory of His justice. Personally, I am still working through this, especially in light of what I've seen in the WLC, but I do not think anyone has "thrown out" the Scriptures in this thread.
Click to expand...


True, no one has thrown out those Scriptures.....I misspoke I apologize. But what do we know about hell? Hell is God's judgment and punishment. Matthew even acknowledged that "God's hatred must always be understood in judicial terms". Hell is all about God's judgment against those in hell and how he works out his judgment.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> The reformed divines were right to say that God has a "common love or grace" for all of mankind, but from what I have read that common love belongs to those here on earth.



First, Does God's love change? Surely not. Secondly, sunshine and rain only witness to God's goodness; they should not be regarded as the goodness itself, and a change in these witnesses should not be used to argue a change in God.


----------



## OPC'n

No his love doesn't change, but just as he withdrew his grace which softened the heart of Pharaoh to reveal his hard heart over and over again, so he can withdraw his love and lay on them his full fury. Same is true about his goodness towards them.


----------



## earl40

Here is my take on this verse

"but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."

Here we have Jesus saying it would have been good if he "never been born". In my mind this is Jesus saying that it would be good if he never existed. Now I know the English translation of "never been born" does not mean that Jesus said it would be good he never existed but not knowing Greek I suspect strongly that is what Jesus meant. I shall let our Greek scholars correct me if I err here.

So if we do indeed have Jesus saying it would be better that he never existed than to experience the punishment for betraying The Son of Man we have Jesus saying that nonexistence being better than being punished for the sin he committed. 

So to rephrase my question I would ask why The Lord said it would be good that Judas never would have been born? Is this from the standpoint as viewed by men and if so how can we call this love? For there are other places in scripture where men wish to die than be in His presence without the covering of Jesus. So connecting the words of Jesus to my thoughts, it appears to say that it would be better to never have existed than to suffer an eternity in hell.


----------



## a mere housewife

Christ was still goodness and love itself though, when He said that to Judas. If it were possible to speak of God's goodness altering as our state of grace alters, I would have to despair; for my only hope when I am bad is that God is good. And it would not simply be a matter of personal despair, but a despair of everything: for if God's goodness alters, then those who are in rebellion against him have the moral high ground at the point where he ceases to be good: for at that point, they are rebelling against what is merely evil and hateful. Wrath would be unrighteous if it were not another manifestation of God's essential goodness.

It is heartbreaking in a way I don't know that I will ever learn to process that we naturally prefer our own misery apart from our Creator in this life and the next, when He is Light without variableness.


----------



## OPC'n

Earl, here is what Calvin has to say about it. Calvin speaks nothing to the subject of loving those in hell but only to the subject of the horridness of hell of which we are all aware. However, he does state that the reprobates are appointed to the day of destruction for God's glory. To me, he is confirming the reason why God makes vessels of wrath which is to show the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy. He gives no other reason for their existence, thus, I think it safe to infer that Calvin giving no other reason did not believe that it was better for the reprobate to exist and go to hell bc God ultimately does love that which he creates. 

"_It had been good for that man_. By this expression we are taught what a dreadful vengeance awaits the wicked, for whom it would have been better that they had never been born. And yet this life, though transitory, and full of innumerable distresses, is an invaluable gift of God. Again, we also infer from it, how detestable is their wickedness, which not only extinguishes the precious gifts of God, and turns them to their destruction, but makes it to have been better for them that they had never tasted the goodness of God. But this phrase is worthy of observation, _it would have been good for that man if he had never been born_; for though the condition of Judas was wretched, yet to have created hint was good in God, who, appointing the reprobate to the day of destruction, illustrates also in this way his own glory, as Solomon tells us:

The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, 
even the wicked for the day of evil, (Proverbs 16:4.)

The secret government of God, which provides even the schemes and works of men, is thus vindicated, as I lately noticed, from all blame and suspicion.
25. And Judas who betrayed him. Though we often see persons trembling, who are conscious of doing wrong, yet along with dread and secret torments there is mingled such stupidity, that they boldly make a fiat denial; but in the end they gain nothing by their impudence but to expose their hidden wickedness. Thus Judas, while he is restrained by an evil conscience, cannot remain silent; so dreadfully is he tormented, and, at the same time, overwhelmed with fear and anxiety, by that internal executioner. Christ, by indirectly glancing, in his reply, at the foolish rashness of Judas, entreats him to consider the crime which he wished to conceal; but his mind, already seized with diabolical rage, could not admit such a sentiment. Let us learn from this example, that the wicked, by bold apologies, do nothing more than draw down upon themselves a more sudden judgment."


----------



## MW

Says Dr. Calvin, "for though the condition of Judas was wretched, yet to have created him was good in God." This is an explicit acknowledgment of the goodness of God in the wretched condition of the reprobate on account of their creation.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> Says Dr. Calvin, "for though the condition of Judas was wretched, yet to have created him was good in God." This is an explicit acknowledgment of the goodness of God in the wretched condition of the reprobate on account of their creation.



This is only part of his quote. His whole quote says why him being created was good in God.

for though the condition of Judas was wretched, yet to have created hint was good in God, *who, appointing the reprobate to the day of destruction, illustrates also in this way his own glory, as Solomon tells us:

The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, 
even the wicked for the day of evil, (Proverbs 16:4.)*


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> This is only part of his quote. His whole quote says why him being created was good in God.



Again, I would not want to say anything that diminishes from God's glory in reprobation. The point, though, is that God's purpose for the individual does not detract from the common love and goodness in their creation; and that is what Calvin has acknowledged.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only part of his quote. His whole quote says why him being created was good in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I would not want to say anything that diminishes from God's glory in reprobation. The point, though, is that God purpose for the individual does not detract from the common love and goodness in their creation; and that is what Calvin has acknowledged.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with you that that is what Calvin is saying here since he gives the reason for their creation being that for God's glory and says nothing to the subject of "common love" for those in hell. I think it's important to see that Calvin doesn't add that to what Jesus says in Mark and that he indirectly refers back to Romans. To be honest, it doesn't really matter if he does love them bc that will not lessen their misery. However, I just think this line of thinking takes away from what Scripture says about why God makes vessels of wrath and to me it's not a good thing. Anyway, I think I've more than said my piece on this so I'll now bow out of the conversation.


----------



## MW

Calvin's Calvinism, A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, 72-73: "*God hateth nothing*, *in us*, *that is his own*; save that fallen nature only, which may be justly called a deformity of the first creation. The great question of reprobation, however, by no means turns on this hinge; — whether or not God hateth anything that He hath made! For although, long before the fall of Adam, God had, for secret reasons of his own, decreed what He would do; yet, we read in the Scripture, that nothing was, or is, condemned by him, but sin. There flows from these premises, therefore, the plain and solid conclusion, that God had just causes, for reprobating a part of mankind; causes, however, hidden from us; but that *He hates and condemns nothing in man*, *except that which is contrary to his justice*."


----------



## OPC'n

And are not those who are in Hell entirely made up of that which is contrary to his justice which is sin. utter depravity is what they now are. Ok I said I was done so I should hold to that.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> utter depravity is what they now are.



Utter depravity is the reality now, and yet you accept common love for the present. Hell is the punishment for that depravity, not the addition of it. And it is a depravity of "creation." Creation is not nullified now nor then. God loves His creation as such. So there is no reason to conclude that God's love ceases towards His creation.


----------



## KMK

OPC'n said:


> And are not those who are in Hell entirely made up of that which is contrary to his justice which is sin.



Sinners in hell are not different in essence than sinners on earth. Death does not change what the sinner is 'made up of.' The sinner in hell is still created in the image of God. God loves His own image. I think that is basically what is at issue here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Satan is a creature. Does it follow that God loves that part of His creation?

Another question: are angels created in the image of God?


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Satan is a creature. Does it follow that God loves that part of His creation?



Scripture is written for man, which enables us to make certain inferences from its teaching. We are only told of Satan insofar as his nature and activity have a bearing on human life. We are not told enough to enable us to draw conclusions concerning God's relationship with him. I think it is safe to say that God's relationship with Satan is irrelevant to the point being discussed.


----------



## OPC'n

Mankind is totally depraved here on earth they are not utterly depraved as exampled by the fact that even the worse of ppl such as Hitler loved their children and even themselves. There is still some grace on everyone's life which keeps each person within some boundaries in order for the to be some order on this earth. Utter depravity is when God's grace is completely lifted from them in Hell they then exhibit nothing but complete evilness. That's the reformed doctrine of depravity that I've been taught. If God loves those in hell bc they bear his image and God loves his own image, then how do reconcile God putting on those with his image his full wrath? To me that would be like him putting his wrath on himself. That of course was already done when Christ took that wrath on the cross. I did email my pastor who is an OPC pastor who stated that it was a silly thing to contemplate. I think he thought me strange for even asking the question.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> And are not those who are in Hell entirely made up of that which is contrary to his justice which is sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinners in hell are not different in essence than sinners on earth. Death does not change what the sinner is 'made up of.' The sinner in hell is still created in the image of God. God loves His own image. I think that is basically what is at issue here.
Click to expand...


The sinner in hell continues to sin thus increasing his judgment I have read here. If so I ask is God restraining any sin of the sinner in hell? Just a question that comes to mind as I read your post.


----------



## earl40

OPC'n said:


> Mankind is totally depraved here on earth they are not utterly depraved as exampled by the fact that even the worse of ppl such as Hitler loved their children and even themselves. There is still some grace on everyone's life which keeps each person within some boundaries in order for the to be some order on this earth. Utter depravity is when God's grace is completely lifted from them in Hell they then exhibit nothing but complete evilness. That's the reformed doctrine of depravity that I've been taught. If God loves those in hell bc they bear his image and God loves his own image, then how do reconcile God putting on those with his image his full wrath? To me that would be like him putting his wrath on himself. That of course was already done when Christ took that wrath on the cross. I did email my pastor who is an OPC pastor who stated that it was a silly thing to contemplate. I think he thought me strange for even asking the question.



I think you bring up a good point that if man is utterly depraved in hell there would be no part of him we could credit to God other than his existence that could be "loved".


----------



## py3ak

It occurs to me that perhaps a different starting point accounts for the different results reached. If you start with being itself as the basic good (or Being Himself as the supreme and most fundamental good), it is not hard to go through the undeniable Scriptural facts that God is the creator and preserver of all things that have being, and that a fundamentally kind and positive relationship towards his creation is posited, to the conclusion that it is love that sustains even the reprobate in being.

This starting point was a conclusion reached in Jewish theology even before the times of the NT.
_Wisdom_ 11:24-26
"For thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made: for never wouldest thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it. And how could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will? or been preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls."

I do not have time at present to look the references up, but those familiar with Augustine, pseudo-Dionysius, and Thomas Aquinas, to name only a few, will probably have little difficulty in recognizing the complex of concepts that Rutherford then takes up and applies explicitly to the being of the reprobate.


----------



## Peairtach

> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)



Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ also mentions that the lost are thankful for God's righteousness because He will not punish them more than they deserve.

But whether one can say that God's righteousness includes His love, and His love includes His righteousness, is something I haven't looked at.

I would assume so, since the Divine Nature (Godhood/Godhead) is One.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
Click to expand...


What mercy does the sinner in hell get? From what I have read so far the general consensus is that God is merciful to the sinner in hell by Him sustaining their existence. Thus this is my reason for my original question in that I do not think those in hell like that "mercy" at all.


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What mercy does the sinner in hell get? From what I have read so far the general consensus is that God is merciful to the sinner in hell by Him sustaining their existence. Thus this is my reason for my original question in that I do not think those in hell like that "mercy" at all.
Click to expand...


I haven't looked at this question of God's love (or "love"?) for those in Hell. He respects them enough to treat them as human beings and therefore not annihilate them, and to give them what they deserve, what we all deserve but for Christ.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What mercy does the sinner in hell get? From what I have read so far the general consensus is that God is merciful to the sinner in hell by Him sustaining their existence. Thus this is my reason for my original question in that I do not think those in hell like that "mercy" at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at this question of God's love (or "love"?) for those in Hell. He respects them enough to treat them as human beings and therefore not annihilate them, and to give them what they deserve, what we all deserve but for Christ.
Click to expand...


I hear you. Though many enjoy His mercy while on earth I think His mercy for their continued existence in hell is not appreciated. Of course to predicate ones feelings on if something is a mercy can be incorrect. For sometimes His chastening, while here on earth, does not seem as a mercy though it surely is such.


----------



## Peairtach

> For sometimes His chastening, while here on earth, does not seem as a mercy though it surely is such.



Very different from Hell, of course. 

God respects the unsaved enough as men made in God's image, to give them judgment and appropriate punishment, not more nor less.


----------



## a mere housewife

Peairtach said:


> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ also mentions that the lost are thankful for God's righteousness because He will not punish them more than they deserve.
> 
> But whether one can say that God's righteousness includes His love, and His love includes His righteousness, is something I haven't looked at.
> 
> I would assume so, since the Divine Nature (Godhood/Godhead) is One.
Click to expand...


Surely the cross as the greatest revelation of God to man teaches us this? The most astonishing outpouring of love the universe holds is also the most astonishing display of the rigor of God's wrath against evil. Love and Righteousness are one: the law is the law of love.


----------



## Peairtach

a mere housewife said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ also mentions that the lost are thankful for God's righteousness because He will not punish them more than they deserve.
> 
> But whether one can say that God's righteousness includes His love, and His love includes His righteousness, is something I haven't looked at.
> 
> I would assume so, since the Divine Nature (Godhood/Godhead) is One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely the cross as the greatest revelation of God to man teaches us this? The most astonishing outpouring of love the universe holds is also the most astonishing display of the rigor of God's wrath against evil. Love and Righteousness are one: the law is the law of love.
Click to expand...


_Surely his salvation is near to those who fear him, that glory may dwell in our land. Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other. Faithfulness springs up from the ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. (Ps 85:9-11, ESV)_


----------



## a mere housewife

Peairtach said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ also mentions that the lost are thankful for God's righteousness because He will not punish them more than they deserve.
> 
> But whether one can say that God's righteousness includes His love, and His love includes His righteousness, is something I haven't looked at.
> 
> I would assume so, since the Divine Nature (Godhood/Godhead) is One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely the cross as the greatest revelation of God to man teaches us this? The most astonishing outpouring of love the universe holds is also the most astonishing display of the rigor of God's wrath against evil. Love and Righteousness are one: the law is the law of love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Surely his salvation is near to those who fear him, that glory may dwell in our land. Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other. Faithfulness springs up from the ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. (Ps 85:9-11, ESV)_
Click to expand...


Alleluia. Isn't it overwhelmingly wonderful to know, and to hope in eternally knowing, this God.


----------



## Peairtach

a mere housewife said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ also mentions that the lost are thankful for God's righteousness because He will not punish them more than they deserve.
> 
> But whether one can say that God's righteousness includes His love, and His love includes His righteousness, is something I haven't looked at.
> 
> I would assume so, since the Divine Nature (Godhood/Godhead) is One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely the cross as the greatest revelation of God to man teaches us this? The most astonishing outpouring of love the universe holds is also the most astonishing display of the rigor of God's wrath against evil. Love and Righteousness are one: the law is the law of love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Surely his salvation is near to those who fear him, that glory may dwell in our land. Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other. Faithfulness springs up from the ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. (Ps 85:9-11, ESV)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alleluia. Isn't it overwhelmingly wonderful to know, and to hope in eternally knowing, this God.
Click to expand...


Amen. 

But after I cited the above text, I thought that it doesn't really apply to the subject of the OP.

It's a very deep and mysterious thought (the OP), and I would have to contemplate it more, in order to speak about it at all. I'd rather bow out, until I have something to genuinely say about it.


----------



## Peairtach

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Satan is a creature. Does it follow that God loves that part of His creation?
> 
> Another question: are angels created in the image of God?



Two more threads? I wonder if these things have been discussed on the PB before?


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is a creature. Does it follow that God loves that part of His creation?
> 
> Another question: are angels created in the image of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two more threads? I wonder if these things have been discussed on the PB before?
Click to expand...


It has been quelled by Rev. Wintzer stating that satan is not a man. No offence meant to one my favorite teachers here. The problem is that satan is part of God's creation and His mercies are over all He creates. "The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made." So In my most humble opinion it is a fair question in that the answer would have to be that God "loves" satan. Now that sounds strange even if we say it is only a "love" considered as satan being a creation.


----------



## a mere housewife

Peairtach said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. (Ps 145:9, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney in his _Systematic Theology_ also mentions that the lost are thankful for God's righteousness because He will not punish them more than they deserve.
> 
> But whether one can say that God's righteousness includes His love, and His love includes His righteousness, is something I haven't looked at.
> 
> I would assume so, since the Divine Nature (Godhood/Godhead) is One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely the cross as the greatest revelation of God to man teaches us this? The most astonishing outpouring of love the universe holds is also the most astonishing display of the rigor of God's wrath against evil. Love and Righteousness are one: the law is the law of love.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Surely his salvation is near to those who fear him, that glory may dwell in our land. Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other. Faithfulness springs up from the ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. (Ps 85:9-11, ESV)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alleluia. Isn't it overwhelmingly wonderful to know, and to hope in eternally knowing, this God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen.
> 
> But after I cited the above text, I thought that it doesn't really apply to the subject of the OP.
> 
> It's a very deep and mysterious thought (the OP), and I would have to contemplate it more, in order to speak about it at all. I'd rather bow out, until I have something to genuinely say about it.
Click to expand...


Richard, it is one of my favorite verses. I think the verse is applicable in a somewhat roundabout fashion (though I would wish to be corrected if I'm wrong). As to covenant administration, the things that are met at the cross are distinguishable and even seemingly opposed. It such a transcendent joy that they are reconciled on the cross because they are not distinct or opposed in God (who is as you cited above, simple and one). Indeed, if they were, there would be no hope of salvation for any of us.

The question in the OP seems to me to have the greatest difficulty in that I don't think people understand the ramifications to our hope when they attack the goodness and love of God in creation, and in His essence. And those ramifications do have impact, perhaps on some more than others.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> It has been quelled by Rev. Wintzer stating that satan is not a man. No offence meant to one my favorite teachers here. The problem is that satan is part of God's creation and His mercies are over all He creates. "The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made." So In my most humble opinion it is a fair question in that the answer would have to be that God "loves" satan. Now that sounds strange even if we say it is only a "love" considered as satan being a creation.



Earl, it requires an inference based on a major and minor premise to come to the conclusion that God's goodness, mercy, love, etc., is extended towards Satan. The major is, God's mercy is over all His works. The minor is, Satan is one of God's works. The conclusion is that God's mercy is over Satan. It would be a perfectly valid conclusion if it could be guaranteed that the statement in the Psalm was intended to reflect an absolute state of affairs and was not written within the context of God's moral government in relation to men. As it stands, however, we know very little about this being which Scripture calls "Satan." Most of our understanding is already based on inferences. So I think it is wisest if we keep silent where Scripture is silent. As this thread has demonstrated, there are biblical principles at stake when we speak of God's relation to men in hell. These principles have no bearing on God's relation to Satan because the Scriptures were not written for him.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Earl, it requires an inference based on a major and minor premise to come to the conclusion that God's goodness, mercy, love, etc., is extended towards Satan. The major is, God's mercy is over all His works. The minor is, Satan is one of God's works. The conclusion is that God's mercy is over Satan. It would be a perfectly valid conclusion if it could be guaranteed that the statement in the Psalm was intended to reflect an absolute state of affairs and was not written within the context of God's moral government in relation to men. As it stands, however, we know very little about this being which Scripture calls "Satan." Most of our understanding is already based on inferences. So I think it is wisest if we keep silent where Scripture is silent. As this thread has demonstrated, there are biblical principles at stake when we speak of God's relation to men in hell. These principles have no bearing on God's relation to Satan because the Scriptures were not written for him.



I agree indeed the inference that men are sustained in hell for eternity can be predicated on God's "love" of the the unelect based on His mercy. Is this not also assuming that the psalmist is speaking of the person in hell? In other words, could this not also be a minor leap to assume the psalmist was speaking of the state of men in hell also?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I had to re-read the thread, but no where in this entire thread have I seen a solid definition of God's love toward the reprobate in Hell. What does it mean when someone says God "loves" those in hell? 

I think it's interesting that in Psalm 5, David uses a contrast of Hate/love. "You hate all who do iniquity (v. 5)... but as for me, by your abundant lovingkindness I will enter your house(v. 7)". He does the same thing in Psalm 11 with verses 5 and 7, as well as, Psalm 45:7. Now you might say that it's God's Judicial hate/love. However, how do you separate one attribute for your own understanding with another attribute of God? (Honest question)

Also, what about passages in Genesis where it clearly shows a side of God (anthropomorphically) where He shouldn't have created men in the first place (Gen. 6:5-7)? Some could say that was before the flood, yet, those men too, were created in the image of God. We are still human, just as they were. And according to some, "What is hell that God's love should not be manifested there?" Yet, the presence of God doesn't always mean love. Scripture is clear of this. 

So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell? His presence wouldn't necessarily be the case, since He's executing judgment/wrath upon them.


----------



## OPC'n

Well said, Andrew!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Andrew P.C. said:


> I had to re-read the thread, but no where in this entire thread have I seen a solid definition of God's love toward the reprobate in Hell. What does it mean when someone says God "loves" those in hell?
> 
> I think it's interesting that in Psalm 5, David uses a contrast of Hate/love. "You hate all who do iniquity (v. 5)... but as for me, by your abundant lovingkindness I will enter your house(v. 7)". He does the same thing in Psalm 11 with verses 5 and 7, as well as, Psalm 45:7. Now you might say that it's God's Judicial hate/love. However, how do you separate one attribute for your own understanding with another attribute of God? (Honest question)
> 
> Also, what about passages in Genesis where it clearly shows a side of God (anthropomorphically) where He shouldn't have created men in the first place (Gen. 6:5-7)? Some could say that was before the flood, yet, those men too, were created in the image of God. We are still human, just as they were. And according to some, "What is hell that God's love should not be manifested there?" Yet, the presence of God doesn't always mean love. Scripture is clear of this.
> 
> So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell? His presence wouldn't necessarily be the case, since He's executing judgment/wrath upon them.


I believe it was Rev. Winzer who provided this insightful quote:

From the Scottish reformed tradition, Samuel Rutherford, _Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself_ (1803), p. 550:

There is a second love and mercy in God, by which he loves all men and angels, yea, even his enemies; makes the sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causeth dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors; as Christ teacheth us, Mat. 5:43, 44, 45, 46,47, 48. Nor doth God miscarry in this love; he desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance, and, with longanimity and forbearance, suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity; yet does not the Lord's general love fall short of what he willeth to them.


----------



## rbcbob

I have been following this thread and considering the line of argument which posits that God loves the damned in hell because they are His image bearers. I am constrained to say that I find this argument problematic. 

If nothing is added to the assertion to distinguish, in any way, the heart of God towards those whom He sent his Son to die for from those whom He passed over in their like sins then it cannot but diminish the glory due unto Him who so loved us that He gave his only begotten Son for our salvation.

As Reformed Christians we rightly assert that the Father saw nothing in us more than others which drew forth his redeeming love. It is only as He viewed us in Christ that we become the object of His distinguishing love. Such is the meaning of Αγαπη in the New Testament.



But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
(Eph 2:4-5 NKJ)

19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. …” (Rev 3:19 NKJ)

Calvin himself said-
“But it is indisputable that no one is loved by God apart from Christ” 
-Calvin, Inst. 3.2.32

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom 8:28-39 NKJ)

Concerning the word love – Αγαπη The T.D.N.T. says-

“Particularly characteristic are the instances in which agapan takes on the meaning of “to prefer,” “to set one good or aim above another,” “to esteem one person more highly than another.” Thus agapan may be used of the preference of God for a particular man. The hgaphmenoj upo tou Qeou has a position of preference before God. He is blessed before God. He is blessed by God with particular gifts and possessions.

The specific nature of agapan becomes apparent at this point. Erwj is a general love of the world seeking satisfaction wherever it can. Agapan is a love which makes distinctions, choosing and keeping to its object. Erwj is determined by a more or less indefinite impulsion towards its object. Agapan is a free and decisive act determined by its subject.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol 1 pp. 36-37 [Trench, in his Synonyms of the New Testament brings out much the same distinctions]

That this distinguishing love of God is peculiar to elect angels and elect men seems more consistent with the language of our Confessions.

WCF 3.5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perserverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (WCF 3:5 WCS)

WCF 17.2 This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (WCF 17:2 WCS)

WLC 13 What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men? A. God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favour as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice. (WLC 1:13 WCS)

WLC 30 Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the Covenant of Grace. (WLC 1:30 WCS)

WLC 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, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein. (WLC 1:67 WCS)


----------



## KMK

Andrew P.C. said:


> So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell?



Can you provide a 'definition' of God's love toward sinners on earth?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

KMK said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a 'definition' of God's love toward sinners on earth?
Click to expand...


No actually. That is also a good question. I don't see where you are going with this though.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

KMK said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a 'definition' of God's love toward sinners on earth?
Click to expand...


No actually. That is also a good question. I don't see where you are going with this though.


----------



## py3ak

Andrew, the definition of God's love towards those condemned in hell is simply that he keeps them in being: he sustains their existence.

Earl's original question revolves around how it is an effect of love to keep them in existence, if it were better that they had not existed. That's a good question; but the answer is that (if the text is taken to speak to the matter at all, which it might well not) this is only true _from their perspective._ But why would we accept the perspective of the reprobate as valid? They have rebelled against God; they have despised his forbearance; they have ignored his longsuffering; they have hated him, and have done what they could to reject good -- are they really a credible source? Is their preference to be made the insight by which we interpret reality? They can't reject all good; it is good that they exist; it is an effect of goodness that they exist; and it is God in his goodness who keeps them in existence. No one who believes in simplicity, or who has paid attention to Exodus 34 and Nahum 1, can possibly believe that goodness and wrath do not or cannot coexist.

Bob, I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that anyone has said that the heart of God towards elect vs. non-elect can't be distinguished in any way. That distinction has been repeatedly made. On the other hand, it bears pointing out that if it is not better to exist than not to exist, then creation itself could be an evil. But the representation of Genesis, and the consensus of Christian theology, is that God communicated existence to his creation _because he is good_. Any other view runs the risk of casting the corrosive of doubt onto our apprehension of God's goodness.

The argument is very simple: God stands related to everyone as Creator to creature. Whatever other relationships may also obtain, that relationship always exists. In that relationship, as Creator, it is asserted that God's tender mercies are over all his works; in that relationship also it is asserted that his mercy endures for ever. _And this is seen to be true from the fact that this creation is never dissolved._ God does not uncreate what he has made. 

Those who hold to classical covenant theology and locate the covenant of works (with the Westminster Standards) under the heading of providence, rather than creation, have the tools at their disposal to make this distinction, because we know that God had a relationship to man before the introduction of the covenant: and that relationship can continue to exist, even when the covenant penalty is enforced to its fullest extent. The covenant of works never provided for the penalty of annihilation: things exist only because God wills them to. Since existence is a good, since it is a good that is the object of God's will, Rutherford does not hesitate to call it love.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> In other words, could this not also be a minor leap to assume the psalmist was speaking of the state of men in hell also?



I come back to what I asked earlier -- does God change? Surely not! As has been noted again and again, the Creator-creature relationship is not dissolved in hell. If there is a cessation of this goodness, mercy, love, etc., it must entail a change in God. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to deny that there is something "common" in the first place. This, of course, will only entangle one in the more fundamental problem as to how one can treasure up "wrath" where there is no despising of "goodness." If one grants this common element of "goodness" towards man as the creation of God, one is obliged to explain how it ceases on God's part.


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> Calvin himself said-
> “But it is indisputable that no one is loved by God apart from Christ”
> -Calvin, Inst. 3.2.32



Sermons on Deuteronomy, 1189: "God then doth love all people. Yea, but not in comparison of his Church. And why? For all the children of Adam are enemies unto God by reason of the corruption that is in them. True it is that God loveth them as his creatures: but yet he must needes hate them, because they be perverted and given to all evill. And that is the cause why the Scripture telleth us that God repented him that he ever made man, considering that he is so marred." See also the earlier quotation from Calvin's Calvinism.

Considered in themselves, as creatures related to the Creator, there is "love." But, in comparison to the love which is shown to the church, it is difficult to call it "love." This is what was noted earlier -- there is no real affinity in the use of the term "love;" nevertheless there are theological principles which demand a place for the concept of love, otherwise there is no way to explain the continuation of their creation or the expression of wrath towards them.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, could this not also be a minor leap to assume the psalmist was speaking of the state of men in hell also?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I come back to what I asked earlier -- does God change? Surely not!
Click to expand...


No, God doesn't change but he can withdraw his common love from ppl just as he withdraws his common grace from ppl. We see it done with Pharaoh when God soften and hardened his heart over and over again. God withdrew his grace from Pharaoh to reveal his hardened heart and then God would place grace on him to soften his heart. We see it now all over the world where God gives much common grace to all and then withdraws it in acts of natural disasters. We see it on those in hell where he has forever withdrawn his common grace from them and has poured upon them his full wrath. He then has withdrawn his love from them also. Why? The answer is below



armourbearer said:


> Considered in themselves, as creatures related to the Creator, there is "love." But, in comparison to the love which is shown to the church, it is difficult to call it "love." This is what was noted earlier -- there is no real affinity in the use of the term "love;" nevertheless there are theological principles which demand a place for the concept of love, *otherwise there is no way to explain the continuation of their creation or the expression of wrath towards them*.



yes there is and Romans 9:19 gives us that answer: You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 *What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—*.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> No, God doesn't change but he can withdraw his common love from ppl just as he withdraws his common grace from ppl.



But there is no withdrawal of their "being." Their "being" is from God. While the "being" remains, you must propose a change in God in order to conclude that God no longer bears the same relation to the same "being."


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, God doesn't change but he can withdraw his common love from ppl just as he withdraws his common grace from ppl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no withdrawal of their "being." Their "being" is from God. While the "being" remains, you must propose a change in God in order to conclude that God no longer bears the same relation to the same "being."
Click to expand...


There is no withdrawal of their being here on earth when he withdraws love or grace and yet their being remains intact without God changing.


----------



## OPC'n

I think what is missing here is that God's wrath which is perfect, just, and holy is quite capable of sustaining those in hell upon which he can pour his wrath. Romans 9 tells us this and no where in Scripture does it say that his love sustains them. David tells us in Psalms that he indeed hates the wicked which is his final (hell) expression towards them. He bears with them in patience/love while upon this earth in order to pour upon them his wrath in hell.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> There is no withdrawal of their being here on earth when he withdraws love or grace and yet their being remains intact without God changing.



But you agreed earlier there is "common love" here on earth. Hence your argument of "withdrawal" is no argument against "common love" to their "being."


----------



## KMK

Andrew P.C. said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, like I asked, what is the definition of God's "love" toward those in hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a 'definition' of God's love toward sinners on earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually. That is also a good question. I don't see where you are going with this though.
Click to expand...


However you define the love of God toward the reprobate here on earth, will be the same way you define the love of God toward the reprobate in hell. The essence of the reprobate does not change after death, and God certainly does not change either. The love of God is not a 'feeling' that comes and goes.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no withdrawal of their being here on earth when he withdraws love or grace and yet their being remains intact without God changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you agreed earlier there is "common love" here on earth. Hence your argument of "withdrawal" is no argument against "common love" to their "being."
Click to expand...


yes i agree that there is common love to those here on earth but I explained why. I'll repost it:

I think what is missing here is that God's wrath which is perfect, just, and holy is quite capable of sustaining those in hell upon which he can pour his wrath. Romans 9 tells us this and no where in Scripture does it say that his love sustains them. *David tells us in Psalms that he indeed hates the wicked which is his final (hell) expression towards them. He bears with them in patience/love while upon this earth in order to pour upon them his wrath in hell.*

His final withdraw of his common grace/love isn't just their suffering here on earth as it would be if he only partially withdrew those things. His complete withdraw of common grace/love is shown in their death. Now I know what you will say: that if his final withdraw of his love results in their death then this would naturally follow that it would end in their complete existence being extinguished. However, as Romans states it is his wrath which keeps them sustained in hell to show the glory of his riches towards the vessels of mercy.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> His final withdraw of his common grace/love isn't just their suffering here on earth as it would be if he only partially withdrew those things. His complete withdraw of common grace/love is shown in their death.



The fact is, their "being" is not withdrawn. Their "being" depends upon God. "Being" is better than "non-being," as is clear in the ontological argument. If "being" is a gift, and it is a gift of God, then the object of this "common love" remains. The only way "common love" could cease is if God Himself underwent a change.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> His final withdraw of his common grace/love isn't just their suffering here on earth as it would be if he only partially withdrew those things. His complete withdraw of common grace/love is shown in their death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, their "being" is not withdrawn. Their "being" depends upon God. "Being" is better than "non-being," as is clear in the ontological argument. If "being" is a gift, and it is a gift of God, then the object of this "common love" remains. The only way "common love" could cease is if God Himself underwent a change.
Click to expand...


I agree that their "being" is better than "non-being" for one reason: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory." So their being is good for God's wrath to be displayed, however, ask any man or woman if they would rather not "be" in order to not bear under his wrath, and I'm quite sure they would rather not "be". But hell has nothing to do with mankind's wants it has to do with God wanting to show a side of his glory through wrath.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I agree that their "being" is better than "non-being" for one reason: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory." So their being is good for God's wrath to be displayed, however, ask any man or woman if they would rather not "be" in order to not bear under his wrath, and I'm quite sure they would rather not "be". But hell has nothing to do with mankind's wants it has to do with God wanting to show a side of his glory through wrath.



I don't think you are working through the implications of what you are saying. In your quotation of Romans 9, the "being," clay, is already presupposed as the common element of both vessels. The purpose of God pertains to the vessel made from that clay, not to the "being" of the clay itself.

The idea of "being" might touch on a metaphysical point which goes over most people's heads. But it is simply impossible to "rather" not "be" when the ability to choose the "rather" depends on the fact that there is a "being" who can choose. As an expression, to "rather not be" could only refer to the condition of "ill-being" in contrast to "well-being."


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that their "being" is better than "non-being" for one reason: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory." So their being is good for God's wrath to be displayed, however, ask any man or woman if they would rather not "be" in order to not bear under his wrath, and I'm quite sure they would rather not "be". But hell has nothing to do with mankind's wants it has to do with God wanting to show a side of his glory through wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you are working through the implications of what you are saying. In your quotation of Romans 9, the "being," clay, is already presupposed as the common element of both vessels. The purpose of God pertains to the vessel made from that clay, not to the "being" of the clay itself.
> 
> The idea of "being" might touch on a metaphysical point which goes over most people's heads. But it is simply impossible to "rather" not "be" when the ability to choose the "rather" depends on the fact that there is a "being" who can choose. As an expression, to "rather not be" could only refer to the condition of "ill-being" in contrast to "well-being."
Click to expand...


I think the metaphysical point of "being" is established on what mankind knows from his experience of observation on this earth. Most ppl fight tooth and toenail to stay alive or to keep their "being" (there are those exceptions). However, the ideology of metaphysics is based completely on mankind's rational thinking about the world around them which can extend to abstract thinking. However, abstract thinking is still based on what mankind has observed and learned this side of heaven/hell. Mankind knows very little about hell, and therefore, his desire to "be" cannot be extended to that which he knows very little about. He has not experienced hell, and therefore, cannot say definitively that he would rather "be" than to "not be" without Scriptural support. Jesus does tell us that it would have been better if Judas had not been born. That does give us a small insight into the definitive of those in hell not wanting "to be".


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I think the metaphysical point of "being" is established on what mankind knows from his experience of observation on this earth. Most ppl fight tooth and toenail to stay alive or to keep their "being" (there are those exceptions). However, the ideology of metaphysics is based completely on mankind's rational thinking about the world around them which can extend to abstract thinking. However, abstract thinking is still based on what mankind has observed and learned this side of heaven/hell. Mankind knows very little about hell, and therefore, his desire to "be" cannot be extended to that which he knows very little about. He has not experienced hell, and therefore, cannot say definitively that he would rather "be" than to "not be" without Scriptural support. Jesus does tell us that it would have been better if Judas had not been born. That does give us a small insight into the definitive of those in hell not wanting "to be".



The point was that there could be no "thinking" or "choice" on whether they wanted to be or not be unless they already had being, and so it is metaphysically impossible to speak of a person wishing they had no being. Their very act of wishing, whatever it is they wish for, shows that they want to have being. However the choice is expressed, it could only refer to "ill-being," and could never refer to "being" in and of itself.

Back to the original point, if "being" is good, and those in hell have "being," then those in hell have something that is good. They have this from God. If it is an expression of "common love" on earth, and God does not change, then it must still be an expression of common love in hell.

I don't think this is complicated to think through. Perhaps the conclusion is startling at first, but a little open thought should help us to see how it accords with the analogy of faith.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the metaphysical point of "being" is established on what mankind knows from his experience of observation on this earth. Most ppl fight tooth and toenail to stay alive or to keep their "being" (there are those exceptions). However, the ideology of metaphysics is based completely on mankind's rational thinking about the world around them which can extend to abstract thinking. However, abstract thinking is still based on what mankind has observed and learned this side of heaven/hell. Mankind knows very little about hell, and therefore, his desire to "be" cannot be extended to that which he knows very little about. He has not experienced hell, and therefore, cannot say definitively that he would rather "be" than to "not be" without Scriptural support. Jesus does tell us that it would have been better if Judas had not been born. That does give us a small insight into the definitive of those in hell not wanting "to be".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that there could be no "thinking" or "choice" on whether they wanted to be or not be unless they already had being, and so it is metaphysically impossible to speak of a person wishing they had no being. Their very act of wishing, whatever it is they wish for, shows that they want to have being. However the choice is expressed, it could only refer to "ill-being," and could never refer to "being" in and of itself.
Click to expand...


Again, this is based on mankind's limited and earthly abstract thinking. Metaphysics is solely based upon logical thinking which stems from mankind's observation and learning upon this earth. Metaphysics is quite incapable of allowing ppl to think and come up with any type of ideology beyond that which he knows or has learned here on earth. For example, we are complete incapable of understanding the Trinity in its fullness no matter how much of an abstract thinker one is. That is bc the Trinity is beyond earthly reasoning. So to state that mankind could not wish or choose to "be" or "not to be" without having a "being" which leads to the point that they want a being in order to choose to "be" or "not to be", is grounded firmly in mankind's earthly, rational thinking. The ideology of metaphysics is incapable of allowing mankind to think outside of this concept. Christ tells us something different: it would have been better if Judas had not been born. Christ tells us that. Christ who is God and can think outside of our rational thinking. [/QUOTE]


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> Again, this is based on mankind's limited and earthly abstract thinking. Metaphysics is solely based upon logical thinking which stems from mankind's observation and learning upon this earth. Metaphysics is quite incapable of allowing ppl to think and come up with any type of ideology beyond that which he knows or has learned here on earth.



Are you doubting the metaphysical certainty that it is impossible for non-being to think or to choose?


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is based on mankind's limited and earthly abstract thinking. Metaphysics is solely based upon logical thinking which stems from mankind's observation and learning upon this earth. Metaphysics is quite incapable of allowing ppl to think and come up with any type of ideology beyond that which he knows or has learned here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doubting the metaphysical certainty that it is impossible for non-being to think or to choose?
Click to expand...


Absolutely not. I completely agree with this idea. However, what I'm saying is that metaphysical ideology is based solely on what we can observe or learn or know this side of heaven/hell. It cannot extend into that which it doesn't know. This idea of "to be or not to be" looks to be that of earthly knowledge however great and rational that knowledge is. I say that only bc of what Christ says of Judas. Christ seems to be letting us into a realm of knowledge (although he has limited that knowledge to us) that goes beyond the concept of "to be or not to be".


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> However, what I'm saying is that metaphysical ideology is based solely on what we can observe or learn or know this side of heaven/hell.



METAphysics is not confined to a specific place. Its conclusions pertain to reality as such. It is simply impossible for non-being to think or choose. Any choice is a choice to be, even the nonsensical choice to not be.


----------



## OPC'n

So the other concept could be that a non-being lacks the ability to choose and the knowledge outside of metaphysics is that knowledge of God who can choose what that non-being would desire and that is to "not be" if he were to end up in hell. That is what Christ says of Judas.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> So the other concept could be that a non-being lacks the ability to choose and the knowledge outside of metaphysics is that knowledge of God who can choose what that non-being would desire and that is to "not be" if he were to end up in hell. That is what Christ says of Judas.



The statement of Christ pertains to the realm of well-being, not being, and specifically addresses the desire of being to pursue its own perfection. It is moral, not metaphysical.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the other concept could be that a non-being lacks the ability to choose and the knowledge outside of metaphysics is that knowledge of God who can choose what that non-being would desire and that is to "not be" if he were to end up in hell. That is what Christ says of Judas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statement of Christ pertains to the realm of well-being, not being, and specifically addresses the desire of being to pursue its own perfection. It is moral, not metaphysical.
Click to expand...


I understand that Christ has "well-being" being in mind for Judas in that Judas' well-being wouldn't be persevered once he got to hell. But in order to persevere his well-being he states that it would be better if he had not been born. That would be the only way to avoid him not having "well-being". To apply metaphysics, in essence he is speaking for Judas what Judas does not know himself but Christ does know.....it would be better if he had not been born. In this way, he is speaking beyond our metaphysical ideology into things we do not know or understand.


----------



## Iconoclast

Scripture speaks of the love of God being In Christ.
rom5:
And hope maketh not ashamed; because t*he love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us*



> 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, *shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.*



If the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.....which those in hell do not have, how does the love of God manifest itself to them if they are eternally separated from Him? God owns the "rights' to all men by virtue of creation. When Romans 5 speaks of God's love it has the elect in view.

again in Jer.31-
3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. This speaking of a redemptive love indicates an unchanging object of that love.

I am having trouble with the idea of love found outside of the Lord Jesus Christ.To be apart from Christ seems to be apart from His love.


----------



## earl40

Rev. Wintzer is physical life a temporal benefit? If so is eternal "life" or conscious existence in hell a benefit which is based on love? If so did the disposition of God change towards the reprobate after they died physically?

The following is from your review on Murray on The Free offer....."The disposition of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."

PS. This was the only part of your excellent article that left me confused and what has prompted the OP.


----------



## KMK

Iconoclast said:


> I am having trouble with the idea of love found outside of the Lord Jesus Christ.To be apart from Christ seems to be apart from His love.



Do you believe in common grace?


----------



## Iconoclast

KMK said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am having trouble with the idea of love found outside of the Lord Jesus Christ.To be apart from Christ seems to be apart from His love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in common grace?
Click to expand...


Hello KMK,
yes...i do believe in common grace as was argued by David Silversides in his debate with Pastor Hanko:
1. Common Grace: Is it Biblical? - SermonAudio.com
2. Common Grace: Is it Biblical? - SermonAudio.com

In the discussion/debate on common grace there is a distinction made between God's goodness and love. I see nothing wrong with the idea of explaining how God is indeed good to all men mt5:45....but I never have seen a biblical case made that there is a love for reprobates that extends into eternity.

If the difference and distinction is maintained *that the goodness of God is different from the love of God* then this discussion sorts itself out. 
If someone wants to combine God's goodness and love as if they are interchangeable ,I am not going to argue of the words being used as to their meaning. I scripturally feel more comfortable to defend the sharp separation between the Holy and profane...that Ezekiel chided the priests about:


> Ezekiel 22:26
> Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.



When God would preserve the godly line in the time of the flood....His love was in the Ark....not outside with the world of the ungodly.


My understanding at this time according to the scriptural language part of what makes hell and second death so horrific is that the reprobate is confirmed in a state of death, indeed the second death.


> 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
> 
> 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.



The perpetual sin of the reprobate without any grace or mercy leaves him hopeless as it is at odd's with God's perfect Holiness.



> 2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
> 
> 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
> 
> 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
> 
> 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
> 
> 5* But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;*
> 
> 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
> 
> 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
> 
> 8 *But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
> 
> 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth e*vil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;






> 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
> 
> 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
> 
> 28 He that despised Moses' law* died without mercy* under two or three witnesses:
> 
> 29* Of how much sorer punishment*, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?




I see no glimpse of any prospect of mercy or love in these passages.

Part of what makes the second death so frightful is an eternity apart from communion with God, much less any of the revealed torment that accompanies it.
Heaven is Heaven because of the Holy attributes of our immutable God being a vital part of our communion with Him.

I do not see anywhere in scripture that in Heaven.... saints undergo any of God's wrath.....or any correction as sin will not be there. Why then would I expect some kind of non redemptive love to be manifest in hell? 

God as creator has the "rights" over all men to do as he pleases.



> 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
> 
> 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people:* for all the earth is mine:*




I never present God's love to anyone as being found outside of Christ.He being the propitiation for His people worldwide.At this time I am not aware of scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise.





17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 *As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
*
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> The following is from your review on Murray on The Free offer....."The disposition of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."



That is dealing with Prof. Murray's claim of a loving disposition to the reprobate in relation to THE FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL. Anything relating to the gospel offer is in and of itself a part of God's salvific purpose, and must be distinguished from what is "common" or "general." That is the main point of the review on that subject. There is also space given to explaining the reformed understanding of common love in order to show how it is restricted by its very terminology.

Again, there is no desire to minimise the eternal decree as it bears on the destinies of individuals. But these individuals have their being from God. The creation theme runs throughout Scripture. It is not confined to the beginning. So it is worth pondering. What is "creation" that it should be deemed so important and valuable? Why did God not sever the Creator-creature relation with the reprobate? He certainly does not need them to live for ever.

This subject bears on the issue of annihilation, which is being raised by some "evangelicals" today. They affirm annihilation of the reprobate is more befitting the loving nature of God. It is because they have lost sight of the biblical philosophy of creation and life. Let's avoid their error.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following is from your review on Murray on The Free offer....."The disposition of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is dealing with Prof. Murray's claim of a loving disposition to the reprobate in relation to THE FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL. Anything relating to the gospel offer is in and of itself a part of God's salvific purpose, and must be distinguished from what is "common" or "general." That is the main point of the review on that subject. There is also space given to explaining the reformed understanding of common love in order to show how it is restricted by its very terminology.
> 
> Again, there is no desire to minimise the eternal decree as it bears on the destinies of individuals. But these individuals have their being from God. The creation theme runs throughout Scripture. It is not confined to the beginning. So it is worth pondering. What is "creation" that it should be deemed so important and valuable? Why did God not sever the Creator-creature relation with the reprobate? He certainly does not need them to live for ever.
> 
> This subject bears on the issue of annihilation, which is being raised by some "evangelicals" today. They affirm annihilation of the reprobate is more befitting the loving nature of God. It is because they have lost sight of the biblical philosophy of creation and life. Let's avoid their error.
Click to expand...


Thank you that is very helpful. I do see where common good providence or benefits are not connected with the cross but in God's dealings with men that are made in His image thus the word hate instead of love is used in the quote. Thank you once again.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> What is "creation" that it should be deemed so important and valuable? Why did God not sever the Creator-creature relation with the reprobate? *He certainly does not need them to live for ever*.



He does need them to live forever. Romans 9 tells us why. *What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.*. I'm not sure why this Scripture is being overlooked as to the reason why he sustains them in hell.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> He does need them to live forever. Romans 9 tells us why. *What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.*. I'm not sure why this Scripture is being overlooked as to the reason why he sustains them in hell.



God needs nothing. He is blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. And we have been over the limitations of Romans 9. You might choose to reject what has been said but it is misleading to say the Scripture "is being overlooked."


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> He does need them to live forever. Romans 9 tells us why. *What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.*. I'm not sure why this Scripture is being overlooked as to the reason why he sustains them in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God needs nothing. He is blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. And we have been over the limitations of Romans 9. You might choose to reject what has been said but it is misleading to say the Scripture "is being overlooked."
Click to expand...


I used "need" in terms of "want" or "desire". I understand that God doesn't "need" any of us. Perhaps Romans 9 hasn't been overlooked and I just missed the comment you or others made concerning it in relation to why he sustains ppl in hell. If I did miss it, I apologize. I will look for that comment later.


----------



## MW

If you were using the term "need" in that way, I will account your response irrelevant to the point I was making, since I obviously did not use it in that way.

You have already accepted there is a "common love" even in the light of Romans 9. The "vessels of wrath" are as much a present reality as an eternal one, according to the apostle's statement. So it is obvious that Romans 9 itself does not rule out a common love, according to your admission. If Romans 9 does not tell us all there is to know about God's relationship to the reprobate I do not understand why I am repeatedly called back to it as if it does.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

armourbearer said:


> Back to the original point, if "being" is good, and those in hell have "being," then those in hell have something that is good. They have this from God. If it is an expression of "common love" on earth, and God does not change, then it must still be an expression of common love in hell.



THIS FINALLY CLICKED WITH ME! I am beginning to get it. Ruben has attempted to explain this multiple times to me, no doubt with the best mental crayon he could muster up at the time. But for some reason, this is where I finally begin to understand this. Pastor Winzer has been blessed with the gift of good mental crayon for the sake of some of us.

But now that I have begun to understand this, I am feeling very strange. Creepy almost. A good biblical strike at ones world view is one thing. However a Biblical strike at one's God view can be daunting and take some adjustment time. 

Thank you for spelling this out so simply Pastor Winzer. Ruben, thank you for your patience brother!


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Winzer:




Yours truly:




Thanks to Earl for starting a discussion that has resulted in so much clarification.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

I was thinking more a comparison as such Ruben.


----------



## py3ak

That also works!


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> If you were using the term "need" in that way, I will account your response irrelevant to the point I was making, since I obviously did not use it in that way.
> 
> You have already accepted there is a "common love" even in the light of Romans 9. The "vessels of wrath" are as much a present reality as an eternal one, according to the apostle's statement. So it is obvious that Romans 9 itself does not rule out a common love, according to your admission. If Romans 9 does not tell us all there is to know about God's relationship to the reprobate I do not understand why I am repeatedly called back to it as if it does.



I went back over our comments and the only thing I found concerning Romans 9 was that God makes vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy from the same lump of clay so it must be assumed that he loves them bc they bear his image. You didn't address the reason Romans 9 gives for why he bears with them with patiences while on this earth. 

Anyway, I'm going to try and sum up your logic on this subject. 
1. God loves his creation (mankind) either with common love or saving love depending on who they are
2. God loves his creation bc they bear his image
3. God never changes
4. Bc God never changes this common loves must follows them to hell
5. God sustaines them with this love in order to forever show his wrath upon them.

If that's not right, please correct what I have wrong.

I agree with 1-3 for now although I'm beginning to change my mind on common love and think it's really only common grace, kindness and patience that we see at work. However, one could say that showing them these things is a loving act. I would change 4-5 for this reason:

4. God never changes but he can withdraw his love just has he withdraws his grace. To say that God never changes and thus his love his love for them never changes, one would have to apply that to other characteristics of God such as grace and patience even kindness. But we know that grace, patience and kindness do not follow them to hell. One is then stuck with "Is God changing with these three characteristics of himself?". We know that God doesn't change so that can't be the answer. However if we apply the fact that God can withdraw from ppl his grace; patience; and kindness, then there is no reason why one can't assume that he can withdraw his love from them also. But I have to decide what sustains them if it isn't the love you say it is. Well, that's easy. His desire to sustain them in order to pour his wrath upon them forever. They sinned against a holy God and they must pay for that. They cannot be annihilated bc that would not pay for their sins. Only bearing his wrath forever satisfies God's righteous judgment against them. It only satisfies him bc that's what he has declared would be their judgment not that they will ever be able to pay for their sins ever.

5.There are Scriptures which states God hates the wicked, but we know that he has to have some common love (although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read bc all the Scriptures I have been reading speaks of his patience kindness etc and his actions show a common grace but no where do I see him stating or showing a common love which would go against Scriptures which states he hates the wicked. Now this hatred could be his end contempt towards them in hell.), common patience, common kindness, and common grace upon them bc we see it everyday. One must then reconcile these two things using more Scripture: God hates the wicked but shows them common love (if we can still say this), patience, kindness, and grace. Romans 9 reconciles these two things for us. He bears with them with patience to show his wrath and power to vessels of mercy. Also Romans 2:3-5 states, "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." The ungodly enjoy his kindness patience etc but for one reason....they are storing up wrath for themselves. So God does withdraw these things from the ungodly once they enter hell. Common grace, patience, kindness etc do not follow them to hell I think we all can agree upon and can agree that it's not bc God changes but bc he has withdrawn those things from them as he can the common love of which you speak.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read



This doubt changes the complexion of the discussion, and is really another subject for another thread.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doubt changes the complexion of the discussion, and is really another subject for another thread.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised that's all you got out of what I said especially when I even stated doubt about my own doubts on common love by stating, "However, one could say that showing them these things is a loving act." and "Now this hatred could be his end contempt towards them in hell".


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doubt changes the complexion of the discussion, and is really another subject for another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that's all you got out of what I said especially when I even stated doubt about my own doubts on common love by stating, "However, one could say that showing them these things is a loving act." and "Now this hatred could be his end contempt towards them in hell".
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you want me to say. Any thought that there is common love for those in hell depends on the acceptance of common love in this world. If common love in this world is doubted I have no leg to stand on. What is the point of going on? The same applies with your reference to Romans 9. If you accept common love with the reprobation taught in that chapter, then Romans 9 itself cannot be used against the concept of common love. But if you now doubt common love, then that has to be established before anything can be based upon it.


----------



## OPC'n

I can understand your point of position. If God doesn't love them here how could he love them in hell. And this common love comes from the fact that they bear his image. What have you found in Scripture that explains what it means to bear God's image?


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> What have you found in Scripture that explains what it means to bear God's image?



Genesis 9, James 3, men as fallen are still regarded as bearing His image in some sense. The reformed have different ways of distinguishing the image of God in man. The most common is the broader and narrower definition. Another way is the natural and moral definition. Broader and natural refer to the gifts of being, intelligence, volition, etc., while narrower and moral refer to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. The fall has effaced the image of God in terms of the latter but not the former.


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have you found in Scripture that explains what it means to bear God's image?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 9, James 3, men as fallen are still regarded as bearing His image in some sense. The reformed have different ways of distinguishing the image of God in man. The most common is the broader and narrower definition. Another way is the natural and moral definition. Broader and natural refer to the gifts of being, intelligence, volition, etc., while narrower and moral refer to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. The fall has effaced the image of God in terms of the latter but not the former.
Click to expand...


I've decided that I care more about you than I do about whether God loves ppl in hell or not. And I don't care about what happens to them bc it's too late for them. And as much as I think about ppl in my family or friends who are not Christians, and I cry for them everyday that they will be, I can't give the verge of my broken heart to those in hell to care even though those I love might end up there...I just can't do that. You see to say that I love you enough to sustain you gives one enough hope that something will change. If only I was good enough here or there then YOU WOULD LOVE ME. Idk what hell is like, but a glimmer of hope for them to endure is worse than God saying, "I hate you for what you are and who you are and this is your torment" than to have him say "I love you enough to sustain you bc you bear my image but here's your torture"..... I don't know how to explain this except that I'm a black and white person....love me completely or don't at all. I can't see the in-between and I'm sure I'm leaving something Godly out of all that, but my brain can't go there right now.


----------



## MW

OPC'n said:


> I've decided that I care more about you than I do about whether God loves ppl in hell or not. And I don't care about what happens to them bc it's too late for them. And as much as I think about ppl in my family or friends who are not Christians, and I cry for them everyday that they will be, I can't give the verge of my broken heart to those in hell to care even though those I love might end up there...I just can't do that. You see to say that I love you enough to sustain you gives one enough hope that something will change. If only I was good enough here or there then YOU WOULD LOVE ME. Idk what hell is like, but a glimmer of hope for them to endure is worse than God saying, "I hate you for what you are and who you are and this is your torment" than to have him say "I love you enough to sustain you bc you bear my image but here's your torture"..... I don't know how to explain this except that I'm a black and white person....love me completely or don't at all. I can't see the in-between and I'm sure I'm leaving something Godly out of all that, but my brain can't go there right now.



God's love to the elect lies at the heart of the reformed faith. Any discussion of common love can only be peripheral and is open to disagreement. As I've attempted to show, though perhaps I failed, the term "love" shares no real affinity to the love God shows to His people. It is only useful because the concept helps us to think through other matters. It would be very sad if a discussion on this subject led to confusion in relation to God's saving love. As far as I can see, it is better to be strong on election and to deny common love than to accept common love and begin to misunderstand election. Blessings!


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

If I may, more specifically, traditional reformed faith embraces the threefold distinction of God's love, of which God's love to the elect is only one aspect. The following is from Francis Turretin's _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_.


TWENTIETH QUESTION: THE GOODNESS, LOVE, GRACE AND MERCY OF GOD
How do they differ from each other?

I. As vindictive justice (treated of in the preceding question) and hatred, wrath and severity (pertaining to it) are concerned with the infliction of physical evil or of punishment, so goodness and the qualities contained under it (viz., love, grace and mercy) are occupied with the communication of good, but diversely.

II. The goodness of God is that by which he is conceived not only absolutely and in himself as supremely good and perfect (as it were) and the only good (autoagathon, Mk 10:18) because he is such originally, perfectly and immutably; but also relatively and extrinsically as beneficent towards creatures (which is called benignity) because it is of the reason of good to be communicative of itself.

III. Although the goodness of God extends itself to all creatures, yet not equally, but exhibits the greatest diversity in the communication of good. Hence one is general (by which he follows all creatures, Ps. 36:6, 7); another special (which has respect to men, Acts 14:17) and another most special (relating to the elect and referred to in Ps. 73:1: “God is good to Israel”). If you seek the causes of this diversity, various ones can be assigned besides his will. (1) It was in accordance with his supreme dominion to show the most free power in diffusing his gifts (which in this inequality is exhibited in the highest manner). (2) The wisdom of God demanded that a certain order should exist in things (which is beheld in the connection of superiors and inferiors). (3) It conduced to the beauty of the universe (which creatures differing in form, actions and qualities render perfect. (4) It afforded a better demonstration of the inexhaustible fountain of divine goodness, since one creature could not receive the full communication of good (thus it should be imparted to more).

IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follow creatures, called "love of the creature" (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called "love of man" (philoanthrōpia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called "the love of the elect" (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroēn) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

*V. A threefold love of God* is commonly held; or rather there are three degrees of one and the same love. First, there is the love of benevolence by which God willed good to the creature from eternity; second, the love of beneficence by which he does good to the creature in time according to his good will; third, the love of complacency by which he delights himself in the creature on account of the rays of his image seen in them. The two former precede every act of the creature; the latter follows (not as an effect its cause, but as a consequent its antecedent). By the love of benevolence, he loved us before we were; by the love of beneficence, he loves us as we are; and by the love of complacency, he loves us when we are (viz., renewed after his image). By the first he elects us; by the second, he redeems and sanctifies us; but by the third he gratuitously rewards us as holy and just. Jn. 3:16 refers to the first; Eph. 5:25 and Rev. 1:5 to the second; Is. 62:3 and Heb. 11:6 to the third.

VI. These four things in the highest manner commend the love of God towards us: (1) the majesty of the lover; (2) the poverty and unworthiness of the loved; (3) the worth of him in whom we are loved; (4) the multitude and excellence of the gifts which flow out from that love to us. (a) God loves us (who, constituted in the highest preeminence [hyperochē] and happiness, needs us not and is not bound to love us; indeed can most justly hate and destroy us if he so willed). (b) Men are beloved, not only as empty and weak creatures, but as sinners and guilty, rebellious servants, who so far from deserving it, are on the other hand most worthy of hatred and punishment (viz., enemies and covenant breakers). (c) He in whom they are beloved is Christ (Eph. 1:5, 6*), the delight of his heavenly Father and the “express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3*), than whom he could have given nothing more excellent, nothing dearer, even if he had given the whole universe. (d) The effects of his love are both many in number and great in value (viz., all the benefits by which salvation is begun in this life and perfected in the other and, what is the crown and sum of all blessings, the gifts of God himself, who imparts himself to us as an object of fruition both in grace and in glory).

VII. Grace succeeds love from which it is called chnvn (“gracious,” Ex. 34:6) by which God is conceived as willing to communicate himself to the creature from gratuitous love without any merit in the creature and notwithstanding its demerit. Now it is usual to understand it principally in two ways: either affectively (as they say), i.e., with respect to the “internal act” in God; or effectively, with regard to the effects which it produces outwardly in creatures. The former is towards us, and we stand objectively related to it; the latter is in us, and we stand subjectively related to it. In the former sense, it denotes the favor and benevolence of God (of his benignant and disposed will) bestowing all things liberally and gratuitously, not from our merit or desert. Again, this implies either the favor by which he loved and elected us to life from eternity (in which sense election is called “the election of grace” [Rom. 11:5], and we are said to be “predestinated to the praise of the glory of his grace” [Eph. 1:6], i.e., of his glorious grace) or that by which he regards us as graceful and accepted in the Son of his love (in which sense, most especially, the apostle often invokes “grace and peace” upon the believers to whom he writes, i.e., both the favor and benevolence of God and its effects of every kind, which are signified by the word “peace,” according to the Hebrew idiom). In the same sense, mention is made of the grace of God in Rom. 3:24, Lk. 1:30 and Tit. 3:7.

VIII. In the latter sense, grace (taken effectively) indicates all the gifts (charismata) of the Holy Spirit gratuitously given to us by God: whether ordinary – of faith, hope and love – for each one’s salvation bestowed upon us in calling, conversion and sanctification (in which sense the word “grace” is used in 1 Cor. 15:10 and Eph. 2:7, 8); or extraordinary and miraculous – for the common edification of the whole church (which are designated by the name of grace in 1 Cor. 12:4, 7, 8 and Eph. 4:7). The Scholastics were accustomed to calling the latter gifts by the name of grace gratuitously given (gratiae gratis datae), but the others by the name of grace making acceptable (gratiae gratum facientis). But this is false both because the ordinary gifts no less than the others are gratuitously given and because they cannot make us acceptable to God (since this is the effect of the sole grace and righteousness of Christ imputed to us). Therefore grace making acceptable with more propriety implies the benevolence of God towards us by which (not from our merit, but by his gratuitous love) he makes us acceptable in Christ. By grace gratuitously given are indicated all the gifts gratuitously conferred on us through the Holy Spirit. And this grace in reference to the variety of its acts is distinguished into operating or preventing (which moves the will to will) and cooperating and subsequent (which effects the performance of the volition). We will treat the latter in the proper place.

IX. Again, grace is distributed into decretive and executive. The former denotes the eternal purpose of God concerning the electing of us before the foundations of the world were laid. The latter embraces the universal dispensation of that wonderful mystery (according to the variety of degrees and times) which exercised itself towards the elects in redemption and in calling, justification, sanctification and other salutary effects (which Paul alludes to in Eph. 1 and 2 Tim. 1:9, 10).

X. Mercy attends upon the grace of God. For as the latter exercises itself about man as a sinner (granting the pardon of his sin) so the former is exercised about man as miserable (relieving his misery). This is properly ascribed to God not as signifying grief arising from the misery of another (as it is in men), but as indicating a prompt and disposed will to succor the miserable without any anguish or perturbation of mind.

XI. It does not spring from any external cause which usually excites this effect in men (as the tie of blood, of friendship, the company of misery, imbecility of age, sex, etc.). Rather it springs from his goodness alone (as he loves to communicate himself to the creature and as he does not refrain from succoring the miserable). Indeed it requires misery in the object, but only as holding the relation of condition and quality and not of a cause. So freely is it occupied about it, that it can exert or not exert itself without injury to anyone. Hence it is said “he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy” (Rom. 9:18).

XII. Mercy is commonly considered as twofold: the one general by which God succors all creatures subjected to any misery (Ps. 104:27); the other special by which he has compassion on his own, electing out of the mass of fallen men certain ones to be saved through Christ (who are, therefore, called “vessels of mercy”). The former is temporal, occupied only with secular things (ta biōtika) and the good of this life; but the latter is saving and eternal, blessing us with the possession of salvation and of eternal life. 

XIII. The magnitude of his mercy may be collected from various sources: (1) with regard to the principle of pitying, (viz., God who, perfectly happy in himself and in want of nothing ,yet moved by his good pleasure [eudokia] alone, condescended to have mercy upon us); (2) with regard to the objects (i.e., men upon whom he takes pity who not only deserved nothing, but are totally unworthy of this favor as sinners and enemies of God); (3) with regard to the mode and effects because he pardons our innumerable sins, removes eternal misery from us and bestows an infinite and eternal good (to wit, life and salvation); (4) with regard to duration because it is eternal (chmd ‘vlm, Is. 54:8; Hos. 2:19; Lam. 3:22; Lk. 1:55*). Hence it is to be opposed: (a) to the severity of the divine justice, in which sense it is said “to rejoice against judgment” (Jam. 2:13); (b) to the number and heinousness of sins (Mic. 7:18); “For where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5:20), and “God hath concluded all in sin, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32*); (c) to the multitude of miseries and temptations because there is not one so great from which the supreme mercy of God, according to his inexpressible riches, does not free us (Ps. 103:8; Eph. 2:4, 5); (d) to the terror of death and the divine judgment because in that decisive day all the pious will obtain mercy (2 Tim. 1:18).

XIV. Although the mercy of God is most ample and manifold with regard to the effects which are innumerable (in which sense he is called “abundantly merciful” [polyeleos, Ps. 51:1; 1 Pet. 1:3], oiktirmoi [i.e., commiseration and bowels of compassion are ascribed to God, Rom. 12:1]), yet it has its own objects and vessels into which it is poured out (viz., the elect and believers upon whom he determined to have mercy from eternity, who are distinguished from others whom he decreed to pass by and are therefore called “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” (Rom. 9:22). It is an asylum for the penitent and pious, but not a refuge for the impenitent and impious.


----------



## a mere housewife

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> II. The goodness of God is that by which he is conceived not only absolutely and in himself as supremely good and perfect (as it were) and the only good (autoagathon, Mk 10:18) because he is such originally, perfectly and immutably; but also relatively and extrinsically as beneficent towards creatures (which is called benignity) because it is of the reason of good to be communicative of itself.





> God is most good; but he who is most good is also most communicable. Therefore, as God created the world from his infinite goodness, that he might communicate himself to it, so in like manner he preserves, administers and governs the world which he created by the same goodness.


-Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, 'Arguments drawn from the nature and attributes of God' under the 10th Lord's Day, Q. 27


----------



## Gavin

I suppose this line of thought could also lead to universalism.

I AM A CONVINCED UNIVERSALIST, by William Barclay


----------



## KMK

Gavin said:


> I suppose this line of thought could also lead to universalism.



This line of thought cannot lead to universalism unless you leave every orthodox confession behind.

The universalist must deny the Justice of God in favor of a God who is Love only. But, we Christians know better.



> LBC chapter 32, Paragraph 1. God has appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness, by Jesus Christ;1 to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father; in which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged,2 but likewise all persons that have lived upon the earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.3
> 1 Acts 17:31; John 5:22,27
> 2 1 Cor. 6:3; Jude 6
> 3 2 Cor. 5:10; Eccles. 12:14; Matt. 12:36; Rom. 14:10,12; Matt. 25:32-46
> 
> Paragraph 2. The end of God's appointing this day, is for *the manifestation of the glory of his mercy*, in the eternal salvation of the elect; *and of his justice,* in the eternal damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient;4 for then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and glory with everlasting rewards, in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who do not know God, and do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments,5 and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.4
> 4 Rom. 9:22,23
> 5 Matt. 25:21,34; 2 Tim. 4:8
> 6 Matt. 25:46; Mark 9:48; 2 Thess. 1:7-10


----------



## Gavin

KMK said:


> Gavin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose this line of thought could also lead to universalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line of thought cannot lead to universalism unless-
Click to expand...



Exactly


----------



## py3ak

Gavin said:


> I suppose this line of thought could also lead to universalism.
> 
> I AM A CONVINCED UNIVERSALIST, by William Barclay



The line of thought presented in the link to Barclay may lead to universalism: the line of thought presented by Rutherford does not lead there at all.

From the note by Barclay:


> If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible.



Barclay was right to say that it is impossible to defeat the love of God; and this is why evil does not succeed in plunging into non-existence. In spite of themselves and their self-destructive efforts, the always effectual and omnipotent creative love of God that brought the reprobates into existence, maintains them eternally in existence. It is only when God as creator (a natural relationship) is confused with God as redeemer (a supernatural relationship) that universalism can be considered a logical outcome rather than a mad leap.


----------

