# What Calvinists say God loves the reprobate?



## Trinity Apologetics

Hi brethren. Since I frequently hear Arminians claim that Calvinists believe God has no love for the non-elect, I was just wondering if you can help me with quotes from Calvinist scholars/authors freely admitting that God has love for the non-elect/reprobate (and maybe even desires their salvation in some sense). I believe John Piper holds this view. Perhaps RC Sproul too. I assume the good majority of Calvinists agree with them.

Blessings and thanks!


----------



## BGF

I can't tell you what all Calvinists say but here is what the Word of God says.



> Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
> 
> Psalm 11:5,"The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
> 
> Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."
> 
> Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
> 
> Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."



The reprobate are those who will finally and fully receive the just judgment of God. I don't see how one could say that God loves the reprobate without qualifying the word love.

He certainly loves sinners, but that love, in the fullest sense of the word, extends only to his elect.


----------



## PaulMc

If God was to love the reprobate, then as Brett intimated above, it would have to be a different love than that to the elect. The love to the elect is unchanging (whereas love to the reprobate would presumably cease at the judgment?) and it is that which causes us to be brought into the family of God - "Behold, what manner of love the father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God" 1 John 3:1.

At least for myself (and perhaps I am in the minority), I see the common blessings to mankind as God showing goodness to his creation which is considered as that - his creation. There is obviously a long-suffering and mercy in some sense, but passages such as Psalm 73 and elsewhere seem to imply that even these common blessings from God are, to some, a means to their own hardening or falling.

In regards to whether God desires the salvation of all men in some sense, it is agreeable with His revealed/preceptive will, but beyond that not. John Owen is helpful on this, and there have been plenty of discussions here on the PB you may want to check out.

The following is a quote from Matthew Henry from his commentary on John 3:16:
'Though many of the world of mankind perish, yet God’s giving his only-begotten Son was an instance of his love to the whole world, because through him there is a general offer of life and salvation made to all. It is love to the revolted rebellious province to issue out a proclamation of pardon and indemnity to all that will come in, plead it upon their knees, and return to their allegiance. So far God loved the apostate lapsed world that he sent his Son with this fair proposal, that whosoever believes in him, one or other, shall not perish.'

Henry doesn't speak directly of God loving individual sinners (even if reprobate) but of a general love to the fallen world - whether those are to be separated or not I'm not sure!


----------



## Pergamum

http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA184/does-god-love-the-elect-and-hate-the-nonelect



> The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that these mercies flow out of God's boundless love? Yet it is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.
> 
> I want to acknowledge, however, that explaining God's love toward the reprobate is not as simple as most modern evangelicals want to make it. Clearly there is a sense in which the psalmist's expression, "I hate the assembly of evildoers" (Ps. 26:5) is a reflection of the mind of God. "Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies" (Ps. 139:21-22). Such hatred as the psalmist expressed is a virtue, and we have every reason to conclude that it is a hatred God Himself shares. After all, He did say, "I have hated Esau" (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13). The context reveals God was speaking of a whole race of wicked people. So there is a true and real sense in which Scripture teaches that God hates the wicked.
> 
> So an important distinction must be made. God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride. It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone.
> 
> However, limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God's compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30), His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. "'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'" (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA184/does-god-love-the-elect-and-hate-the-nonelect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that these mercies flow out of God's boundless love? Yet it is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.
> 
> I want to acknowledge, however, that explaining God's love toward the reprobate is not as simple as most modern evangelicals want to make it. Clearly there is a sense in which the psalmist's expression, "I hate the assembly of evildoers" (Ps. 26:5) is a reflection of the mind of God. "Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies" (Ps. 139:21-22). Such hatred as the psalmist expressed is a virtue, and we have every reason to conclude that it is a hatred God Himself shares. After all, He did say, "I have hated Esau" (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13). The context reveals God was speaking of a whole race of wicked people. So there is a true and real sense in which Scripture teaches that God hates the wicked.
> 
> So an important distinction must be made. God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride. It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone.
> 
> However, limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God's compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30), His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. "'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'" (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.
Click to expand...


This is a good quote though the last paragraph has some major problems in that is posts a desire that is unfulfilled in The Lord. "a sincere heart of genuine love"

There is a remedy for this. http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here's the problem - those who object in the fashion described in the OP are typically not interested in any "proof" that doesn't comport with their understanding of the manner that God must love all or it is no love at all. I don't know how many times I've literally heard some Christians say that: "If God is like that then I would not worship Him..." or something of that sort. Wesley once said something to the effect that "...whatever Romans 9 says, it can't be saying _that_...."

If you want to call it Armninianism or Semi-Pelagianism then that's fine but what they have in common is that they build from a philosophical notion of what is good or loving and then make the God of the Scriptures to look like that. They begin with a notion of the free will of man and human responsibility and reason back into the Scriptures. How many times have you heard the idea that "love requires the ability for rejection" or that "God wanted people who would choose to love Him" or "God couldn't hold people responsible unless they are free to choose otherwise". None of these are premises that can be grounded in a single clear exposition of the Scripture but are philosophically imported into the text and control the Word of God.

Thus, we can show them all the quotes we want about how God's love of benevolence to creatures in allowing the rain to fall on the just and unjust demonstrates love. We can show them how God delaying wrath from the time of the Fall until now demonstrates a love for His creatures that He has not yet judged them and they enjoy good things in this life for now.

Yet, the person philosophically committed to what he has determined love is (and by extension because God thinks just like him then this is the love that God Himself is bound to), he doesn't believe this is love. No, for God to love then He has to love the way they think He needs to. He can play no favorites. He must love all humanity indiscriminately and choose to adopt only those children who have first come to Him and agreed to be His children. If all humanity deserves the wrath and curse of God (some are even denying that now) then their philosophical love demands that God must extend an equivalent amount of grace to all men to overcome their "all deadness" and leave them "mostly dead" so they can choose God to be their "true love". If God passes over some and shows specific love by giving them life then God is not loving. No matter what the Scriptures teach, God can't be that way because they've already determined, philsophically, that this is not loving and God is love.


----------



## Paul1976

John Piper certainly holds the view that God loves the reprobate in some way. He is careful to differentiate that it is not at all the same love he holds for the elect. The example he uses is that he loves all the women in his congregation, but not the same way he loves his wife.

In Piper's defense, his view is founded on a number of passages that are difficult to interpret without seeing some form of love of God towards the reprobate. There are some of the classic ones Arminians love to point to, but others I personally find difficult to dismiss (much less to reconcile with passages such as those Brett mentioned. Jesus wept over Jerusalem - it's hard not to see a love for the unregenerate in his words. Perhaps the clearest I can think of off the top of my head is Jesus interaction with the rich young ruler, who was clearly unregenerate. Mark 10:21 is very clear that Jesus loved him.

Ethan, if you're interested in specific quotes from Piper regarding God's love for the unregenerate, I would suggest searching his sermons on passages that imply a universal love towards the unregenerate. He often deals with that issue when speaking on such a passage. Hope that helps.


----------



## timfost

I think Rich and Paul hit the nail on the head. There is real danger in trying to understand God through how we would deal with things since we were made in His image, not He in ours.

I believe that Owen tried to make the case that God, although benevolent to mankind, would only say that God loves the elect in any way. I think this is unnatural and unbiblical.

Concerning the sincere offer, this is a bit of a controversial one on this site, but the link below should give you some good resources for study on both sides.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...rial-on-the-well-meant-offer-(pro-and-contra)


----------



## Phil D.

Calvin himself appears to have taken a view not dissimilar from Piper's.

"Proofs of the love of God towards the whole human race exist innumerable, all which demonstrate the ingratitude of those who perish or come 'to perdition.' This fact, however, forms no reason whatever why God should not confine His especial or peculiar love to a few, whom He has, in infinite condescension, been pleased to choose out of the rest." (_Reply of John Calvin to Article 1 and to the Caluminators Observations Thereon_)


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

"No fair!" comes the cry from the crowd. But by what standards of "fair" are these denouncements birthed? Certainly not from God's standards. The Scriptures no nothing of the "fairness" that man would claim. The Scriptures are replete with God choosing the lesser over the greater deserving or the worst of sinners over the least of sinners: “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad... [Rebekah, their mother] was told, 'The older will serve the younger'” (Romans 9:11-12)—Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, and Judah over Joseph. In virtually every example of God's sovereignty in the scriptures we see Him choosing the unmerited over whom not a few misinformed folk would assume the more meritorious. 

God has continually shown throughout the history of His recorded revelation, that His ways are not our ways, and He will do as He judges rightly, not making Himself subject to our own notions of how or why He should act in relationship to us. _God sets the standard for fairness, not man_. Sadly, the crowd calling for fair play would reason away God's very kingship were it not for the clear Scriptural basis to the contrary.


----------



## psycheives

I agree with the care and distinctions my brothers take with regard to any declarations that God loves the reprobate and appreciate Piper and Calvin emphasis if one does say "God loves the reprobate" that it be clear that he does not do so in the same way as the elect. 

I personally do NOT like to speak in such terms because it has been my experience that usually those who speak broadly, "God loves all people" are making such a statement out of a very flawed Arminian theology. And they will often do damage to God's sovereignty by saying He wanted everyone saved but couldn't accomplish this. It also runs into the problem of making it sound like God is eternally punishing those he loves and I struggle with such an idea against all the "hate" passages. If God hates evil, doesn't he really have to hate the reprobate in order to be just? Christ does not pay for them in any way. Thus they (not just their sins) are abhorrent to God. His temporary mercy UPON them during this lifetime shouldn't be confused with love FOR them, for He punishes them in hell for eternity. Ultimately and eternally, God's relationship to the reprobate is one of everlasting wrath. I think we should be ultra careful with our language not to speak like this, as if God loved all the same.


----------



## Pergamum

Piper, MacArthur, Joel Beeke, Matthew Henry, and Calvin all seem to believe in the free offer of the Gospel and a love of God towards all mankind. 

https://jamesdurham.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/a-puritan-theology-on-the-well-meant-offer/



> “The Canons of Dort explain the international Puritan and Reformed perspective [on the gospel call] well in head 3-4, articles 8-9 … The Canons make plain that there is no insufficiency in God’s willingness to save sinners. The invitation does not lie or decieve; it is a true, rich, full, free invitation. The gospel is a well-meant offer. Christ has declared Himself ready and willing to receive all who to come to Him and to save them … The call is based on the condition of faith, but it is a true invitation … judgment day will confirm this truth. No one will stand before God on the last day and say … “I received the invitation, but I did not think it was sincere.” The call to come to Christ is a well-meant offer of salvation addressed to every human being.”



http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/read/articles/does-god-so-love-the-world-9312.html


> John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."


----------



## Pergamum

and this: http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/freeoffer.shtml



> The term "offer" or "free offer" is used in the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith VII/III; Larger Catechism Ans. 32, 63, 68; Shorter Catechism Ans. 31 and 86).
> 
> The Larger Catechism puts it beyond doubt that the term is used in reference to non-elect persons; "...who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ" (Larger Catechism Ans. 68).Attempts have been made of late to rob the term "free offer" of much of its real meaning, as if it meant no more that "present" or "exhibit" (see H. Hanko, Protestant Reformed Journal Nov. 1986, pp. 16f). The intended meaning is far more than this. Anyone wishing to catch the true meaning of these terms and the general outlook of the Puritan period should read the "Sum of Saving Knowledge" drawn up by David Dickson and James Durham and often printed along with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, no doubt due to its claim to be "A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, and holden forth in the foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms". The section on "Warrants to Believe" and its handling of Isaiah 55/1-5 and 2 Cor. 5/19-21 are especially noteworthy and the many references to God's promises, offers of grace, sweet invitations, loving requests etc.


----------



## Peairtach

Whatever the nature of the love, or even whether He loves them at all, all the Reformed agree that it is not a saving love, but that it falls short of that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Piper, MacArthur, Joel Beeke, Matthew Henry, and Calvin all seem to believe in the free offer of the Gospel and a love of God towards all mankind.
> 
> https://jamesdurham.wordpress.com/20...l-meant-offer/
> 
> “The Canons of Dort explain the international Puritan and Reformed perspective [on the gospel call] well in head 3-4, articles 8-9 … The Canons make plain that there is no insufficiency in God’s willingness to save sinners. The invitation does not lie or decieve; it is a true, rich, full, free invitation. The gospel is a well-meant offer. Christ has declared Himself ready and willing to receive all who to come to Him and to save them … The call is based on the condition of faith, but it is a true invitation … judgment day will confirm this truth. No one will stand before God on the last day and say … “I received the invitation, but I did not think it was sincere.” The call to come to Christ is a well-meant offer of salvation addressed to every human being.”



Perg,

I certainly don't disagree with this point about the free offer of the Gospel in the conditional promise made to all men. The conditional promise in the proclamation of God's Word is that Christ is a ready and able Savior. There is no excuse for men to wonder whether the conditional promise is true.

That said, Beeke and Jones go on to point out that the Puritans also believed there was an unconditional promise made to the elect that the conditional promises would be fulfilled in us by the Spirit of Christ.

I point this out not to dispute that the conditional promise is a form of real benevelonce from God but only to note that there are some who will dispute that it is any kind of love because God is particular in the unconditional promise. They will have nothing of any kind of love (no matter how much we insist) because they'll say it's no love and no sincerity at all because God leaves men unable (by their own rebellion) to fulfill the conditional promise. The answer is that there is no fault in the conditional promise. The fault lies in the sinner for rejecting it but men will still insist that it's somehow God's fault because He must not only make a conditional promise to be loving but must make the unconditional promise (and fulfill the conditional promise) or He is not at all loving.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Piper, MacArthur, Joel Beeke, Matthew Henry, and Calvin all seem to believe in the free offer of the Gospel and a love of God towards all mankind.



I can't speak to the views of the other men, but having read Calvin extensively I think he would make a distinction between "all mankind" and "reprobates." It is one thing to say God has a love for all mankind irrespective of election and reprobation and quite another to say that God loves reprobates. The word "reprobate," in Calvin's theology, meant that God bears a distinct relation towards men whom He has decreed to be the objects of His justice and who are therefore denied the love and mercy which He freely showers on the elect.

If one desires to regard the "spits of rain" which deflect off the elect as an expression of "love," then sure, there is a certain analogy which can be drawn between them. But in effect it is a different kind of thing to the "showers of rain" which the elect immediately and undeservedly enjoy, and it tends to distort the nature of love to use the same language to describe both.


----------



## timfost

MW said:


> I can't speak to the views of the other men, but having read Calvin extensively I think he would make a distinction between "all mankind" and "reprobates." It is one thing to say God has a love for all mankind irrespective of election and reprobation and quite another to say that God loves reprobates. The word "reprobate," in Calvin's theology, meant that God bears a distinct relation towards men whom He has decreed to be the objects of His justice and who are therefore denied the love and mercy which He freely showers on the elect.



What about this?



> Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his *love towards mankind*, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his ownself prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way. But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the *reprobate* are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. (Commentary on 2 Pet. 3:9)



Also, Calvin did not seem to use "love" and "hate" as mutual exclusives (approvingly quoting Augustine in relation to the elect):



> Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love what he had made. (Institutes 2.16.4)



Thoughts?


----------



## MW

> no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the *reprobate* are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel.



This illustrates the point. As soon as the reprobate are mentioned, Calvin thought of them as objects of justice.


----------



## py3ak

*What Calvinists say God loves the reprobate?*

Answer: the confused kind. It is not _as reprobate_ that God loves someone. It is precisely _as_ reprobate that God does not love them. One can speak of love being given to a person who is reprobate, but it is as God's creature.


----------



## KMK

I think at least some of these Calvinists are simply trying to meet people where they are at without needlessly offending them with the doctrine of predestination.



> LBC Chapter 3: Paragraph 7. The doctrine of the high mystery of predestination *is to be handled with special prudence and care,* that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election;18 so shall this doctrine afford matter of praise,19 reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility,20 diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.21



People must be brought around to see God's undeserved love for themselves before the doctrine of reprobation will 'afford matter of praise'.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> *What Calvinists say God loves the reprobate?*
> 
> Answer: the confused kind. It is not _as reprobate_ that God loves someone. It is precisely _as_ reprobate that God does not love them. One can speak of love being given to a person who is reprobate, but it is as God's creature.



It's precisely this distinction that is lost in some of these conversations.

The quote from Calvin illustrates how the Gospel, in it's historical proclamation, is regarded as "love toward men". As far as man is concerned, in the Gospel, he is not permitted to wonder about the inscrutable ways of God and determine whether God has elected him from all eternity. The Gospel goes out to men as sinners and it is enough to know that I'm a sinner and I need to respond. We get far too wrapped up in trying to bring election into these distinctions. That's what Calvin is saying here. When teaching on John 3:16, it is not the time and place to begin asking questions like: "Well, if I'm reprobate does God really love me?" These are questions that can never be asked. These are speculative points that violate the Word of God. It is sufficient for us to trust the Word of God proclaimed that announces salvation.

If we are then to go to a Scripture that explains God's reprobation we may learn something about God's election and reprobation (as far as we can understand it as creatures) and conclude that there is something in the divine act that the Scriptures call "love" and "hate" but that is revealed to us that we might know God's intention to show mercy to objects of His affection primarily. It's intended to demonstrate God's steadfastness toward us. It is not given that we might then wonder - "Well, that's fine that you have loved me from the foundation of the world but what's _really_ important for me to know is this: In what sense have you loved those you passed over when you elected me to be in Christ? If you can't answer that question appropriately then I don't think you're really that loving no matter how much you've lavished me with undeserved favor."


----------



## Toasty

Some Arminians believe that if God gives material blessings to people, but does not elect them to salvation then God does not really love them. The assumption is that if God does not give you the greatest blessing, then God does not really love you. Getting material blessings does no one good if you don't get elected for salvation.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is John Calvin affirming degrees of love...both a general love for all and an electing love of some:



> Mark 10:21 ~Jesus beholding him, loved him.~
> 
> The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good — that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration — have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.
> 
> But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption


(Calvin’s Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospel. Vol. 2. p.297).


Here is also Calvin in a sermon on Deuteronomy:


John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon No. 28 (on Deut. 4.36-38), p. 167:



> It is true that Saint John saith generally, that [God] loved the world. And why? For Jesus Christ offereth himself generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer...
> 
> ...Thus we see three degrees of the love that God hath shewed us in our Lord Jesus Christ. The first is in respect of the redemption that was purchased in the person of him that gave himself to death for us, and became accursed to reconcile us to God his Father. That is the first degree of love, which extendeth to all men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ reacheth out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to him. But there is a special love for those to whom the gospel is preached: which is that God testifieth unto them that he will make them partakers of the benefit that was purchased for them by the death and passion of his Son. And forasmuch as we be of that number, therefore we are double bound already to our God: here are two bonds which hold us as it were strait tied unto him. Now let us come to the third bond, which dependeth upon the third love that God sheweth us: which is that he not only causeth the gospel to be preached unto us, but also maketh us to feel the power thereof, so as we know him to be our Father and Saviour, not doubting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, who bringeth us the gift of the Holy Ghost, to reform us after his own image.


----------



## Pergamum

http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists/calvinism/freeoffercalvin.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists/calvinism/freeoffercalvin.htm



Wow, the web design on that page is so bad that it almost seems like a parody of bad web design.

I'm curious why you quoted it. I don't think anyone is disputing that Calvin taught (as do the Confessions) that the Gospel is to be preached to all and that a conditional promise of salvation is proclaimed in the Gospel proclamation.


----------



## Pergamum

Bad web design is a particular ailment of fundamental baptists, it is true. Bad web design is not always proof of heresy, however.

https://books.google.com/books?id=NhRoBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=free+offer+of+the+gospel+john+calvin&source=bl&ots=bggBf5432A&sig=1tlnvks7g-XMIjDbRffdnUx8Daw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMI2PO3l-uIyAIVgowNCh17rQ9R#v=onepage&q=free%20offer%20of%20the%20gospel%20john%20calvin&f=false

This link to the Google-book version of the book, "James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer in Its Seventeenth-Century Context" shows that Calvin held to a "paternal love" of God towards all people. Those other quotes I provided do the same. 

It is not merely that there is a conditional promise given. It is a "well-meaning offer of salvation." God desires the salvation of all mankind even though He only elects some. 

The OP concerns God's love towards the non-elect. Yes, it appears that God does, indeed, love all of his Creation, and his disposition is to bless that creation. Many respectable Reformed authors have contended as such. The Arminian errs in that he does not recognize degrees of that love, but others among the Reformed err in that they do not recognize common grace and God's fatherly love to all of his creation, nor His desire to bless all, nor the genuine-ness of the Gospel offer.

Also, on pages 34-35, Turretin's view is laid out, where he expounds Matthew 22 and the parable of the King's wedding feast, which would seem to indicate that the acceptance of this invitation would be pleasing to God:

: https://books.google.com/books?id=NhRoBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=free+offer+of+the+gospel+john+calvin&source=bl&ots=bggBf5432A&sig=1tlnvks7g-XMIjDbRffdnUx8Daw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBmoVChMI2PO3l-uIyAIVgowNCh17rQ9R#v=onepage&q=free%20offer%20of%20the%20gospel%20john%20calvin&f=false

Turretin, expounding the Canons of Dort, even states that God "wishes" the salvation of all, though He does not decree the election of all - Turretin, Institutes, 1:354 (4.17.8).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> The OP concerns God's love towards the non-elect. Yes, it appears that God does, indeed, love all of his Creation, and his disposition is to bless that creation. Many respectable Reformed authors have contended as such. The Arminian errs in that he does not recognize degrees of that love, but others among the Reformed err in that they do not recognize common grace and God's fatherly love to all of his creation, nor His desire to bless all, nor the genuine-ness of the Gospel offer.



In the case of Arminians they will dispute that God can have the degrees of love necessary.

I think the debate among some Reformed is often one of distinctions. What I often notice is that the Reformed distinction about the offer of the Gospel is often lost when advocating for a certain view.

As we have already seen, people will move from a degree of love that God shows all men in sending His son or another degree of love He manifests in the proclamation of the Gospel and then move to a question of God as He is in Himself. This is where it gets dicey. They'll move from a historical, revealed theology and begin to ascribe conditions where God has unrealized "desires", in Himself, that He has decreed will never be fulfilled. They'll say: "See Calvin says that God loves the reprobate" where the issue of reprobation is not so much a category of men we can lay our hands on but are men that God passed over before the foundation of the world.

Thus, I found it interesting that portion of A Puritan's Mind that you quoted earlier (or linked to). The person's blog extracted from that Chapter on Coming to Christ what he wanted. I think it would be hard to find anyone who knows the Puritans who is going to argue that the Conditional Promise of coming to Christ as a ready Savior is not to be preached prolifically to all men. It is proclaimed indiscriminately because the conditional promise is made to sinners. We are never to place any barrier in preaching about Christ's willingness and ability to save all who come to Him.

The real debate comes in when some want to move beyond this conditional promise and peer into things not relevant to the conditional promise and claim that it cannot be "sincere" unless there's some reference to an electing or decretal act and we can discern God's true emotional state toward that individual. It's not enough that the conditional promise to be true - that Christ is able and willing to save sinners. Some will debate that we need to know _more_. How does God _really_ feel about that particular sinner if He refuses salvation? It peers into things hidden and irrelevant to the proclamation. It is enough for the hearer to hear what the Word says in the conditional promise.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP concerns God's love towards the non-elect. Yes, it appears that God does, indeed, love all of his Creation, and his disposition is to bless that creation. Many respectable Reformed authors have contended as such. The Arminian errs in that he does not recognize degrees of that love, but others among the Reformed err in that they do not recognize common grace and God's fatherly love to all of his creation, nor His desire to bless all, nor the genuine-ness of the Gospel offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of Arminians they will dispute that God can have the degrees of love necessary.
> 
> I think the debate among some Reformed is often one of distinctions. What I often notice is that the Reformed distinction about the offer of the Gospel is often lost when advocating for a certain view.
> 
> As we have already seen, people will move from a degree of love that God shows all men in sending His son or another degree of love He manifests in the proclamation of the Gospel and then move to a question of God as He is in Himself. This is where it gets dicey. They'll move from a historical, revealed theology and begin to ascribe conditions where God has unrealized "desires", in Himself, that He has decreed will never be fulfilled. They'll say: "See Calvin says that God loves the reprobate" where the issue of reprobation is not so much a category of men we can lay our hands on but are men that God passed over before the foundation of the world.
> 
> Thus, I found it interesting that portion of A Puritan's Mind that you quoted earlier (or linked to). The person's blog extracted from that Chapter on Coming to Christ what he wanted. I think it would be hard to find anyone who knows the Puritans who is going to argue that the Conditional Promise of coming to Christ as a ready Savior is not to be preached prolifically to all men. It is proclaimed indiscriminately because the conditional promise is made to sinners. We are never to place any barrier in preaching about Christ's willingness and ability to save all who come to Him.
> 
> The real debate comes in when some want to move beyond this conditional promise and peer into things not relevant to the conditional promise and claim that it cannot be "sincere" unless there's some reference to an electing or decretal act and we can discern God's true emotional state toward that individual. It's not enough that the conditional promise to be true - that Christ is able and willing to save sinners. Some will debate that we need to know _more_. How does God _really_ feel about that particular sinner if He refuses salvation? It peers into things hidden and irrelevant to the proclamation. It is enough for the hearer to hear what the Word says in the conditional promise.
Click to expand...


Rich, 

Do you affirm that God is said to desire some things in Scripture that He chooses not to bring to pass? Are we to believe that, if God states that He desires a thing, that He is not truly sincere when He states that He desires a thing?

I don't know what is happening inside of the mind or will of God except by what He has revealed. And what He has revealed includes, (1) His general offer of salvation to all who believe, (2) the indications through the parables that he really means it when he says that he wants us to attend the feast and when the father rejoices over the returned prodigal and heaven rejoices over every sinner saved, (3) 2 Cor. 5, that we are ambassadors for Christ and it is as if God is beseeching and pleading through us when we in Christ's stead tell people to be reconciled to God. This does not appear to be a charade. (4) Ezekial 33, that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked in general (though it appears to satisfy his justice in a sense) (5) That God has a general love and disposition to bless all.

As the Minutes of the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1948, says:



> There is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance. The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all. Such grace is necessarily a manifestation of love or lovingkindness in the heart of God, and this lovingkindness is revealed to be of a character or kind that is correspondent with the grace bestowed. The grace offered is nothing less than salvation in its richness and fulness. The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to salvation.



Yes, I agree with you that the Arminian errs in not recognizing these degrees of God's love. Some of the Reformed err in not recognizing this two-fold aspect of the will of God and the general love of God towards all, even the non-elect. The OP asked for quotes about God's love towards the non-elect, and I have provided some.

If someone proclaims the love of God for the whole world or for all mankind, and, instead of affirming this general truth, you spend 20 minutes countering this supposed "Arminian heresy" - then you've got the wrong kind of Calvinism. 

If the majority of your next sermon on John 3:16 is why "world" does not really mean world, instead of using the bulk of your time to emphasize the huge-ness of the love of God, then you've got the wrong kind of Calvinism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> This link to the Google-book version of the book, "James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer in Its Seventeenth-Century Context" shows that Calvin held to a "paternal love" of God towards all people.



I am buried in a footnote somewhere in that tome, though do not read too much into it. I only mentioned a reference to something when having lunch at the author's house one Sabbath afternoon.


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This link to the Google-book version of the book, "James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer in Its Seventeenth-Century Context" shows that Calvin held to a "paternal love" of God towards all people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am buried in a footnote somewhere in that tome, though do not read too much into it. I only mentioned a reference to something when having lunch at the author's house one Sabbath afternoon.
Click to expand...


I am looking for a PDF or an affordable version of that book. The only copy I can read right now is the Google-book version. Do you have any leads?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This link to the Google-book version of the book, "James Durham (1622–1658): And the Gospel Offer in Its Seventeenth-Century Context" shows that Calvin held to a "paternal love" of God towards all people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am buried in a footnote somewhere in that tome, though do not read too much into it. I only mentioned a reference to something when having lunch at the author's house one Sabbath afternoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am looking for a PDF or an affordable version of that book. The only copy I can read right now is the Google-book version. Do you have any leads?
Click to expand...


Your best option is to try and obtain a review copy for a magazine or journal or just wait until the book is remaindered.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I agree with you that the Arminian errs in not recognizing these degrees of God's love. Some of the Reformed err in not recognizing this two-fold aspect of the will of God and the general love of God towards all, even the non-elect. The OP asked for quotes about God's love towards the non-elect, and I have provided some.
> 
> If someone proclaims the love of God for the whole world or for all mankind, and, instead of affirming this general truth, you spend 20 minutes countering this supposed "Arminian heresy" - then you've got the wrong kind of Calvinism.
> 
> If the majority of your next sermon on John 3:16 is why "world" does not really mean world, instead of using the bulk of your time to emphasize the huge-ness of the love of God, then you've got the wrong kind of Calvinism.



I don't know if you're using the second person here to refer to me but I'm simply trying to deal with a complex issue in the complexity that it comes at us.

The issue of Arminians was brought up by the OP and as much as we quote Calvin or the Puritans on the need to prolifically proclaim the Gospel of the Father's offer of salvation to all and that this is the love of God revealed then I'm merely pointing out that they will not accept this as love if they insist upon an indiscriminate love that God shows all men equally or it is no love at all. I'm not so much interested in scoring points or determining how I'm going to preach a sermon in response to this but simply ensuring people are aware of this. I don't need to change anything about how much I plead with sinners or apologize to them about whether God has an electing love that is irrelevant to the point of whether, Today, if they hear His voice they are not to harden their hearts. I leave such things to the Spirit.

With respect to the "Reformed" you seem to say "err", what I'm trying to determine is whether you actually sweep Calvin into that group for the distinctions he himself makes or if there is a "Calvin vs the Calvinists" or "Puritans against some Reformed people today" thing going on.

We can all agree that God's love is expressed in anthropopathetic language in the call for the repentance of sinners in the offer of the Gospel. We can even agree that there is a love and benevolence that is wide and free for sin-cursed humanity in the sending of the Son. If we left it at that then there would be no debates.

What I sense you're calling "error" is when people get into discussions trying to unpack the first two types of love that Calvin describes and some insist there needs to be something of that third type of love "flowing into" the first two types of love for the first two types of love to be "sincere" and "well meant".

Thus, when you quote a bunch of things that all agree upon - the first two kinds of love that Calvin notes above and describes them as such, you're not necessarily showing others as being in error. The real question (which I'm not sure you've addressed yourself) is whether "well meant offer" means more than what Calvin and the Puritans seemed to agree upon - a conditional promise made prolifically. It's when we get to unconditional Promises that things get dicey and we need to sort out whether someone has defined "well meant offer" in a different manner.

I know this is terribly tedious and I'm not trying to be tedious but the discussion about the necessity of limited atonement is fruitful because the unconditional Promise of faith has consequences in whether we can produce a kind of faith that some would say we have to exercise in order for God's offer to be "sincere" so these aren't simply academic discussions or a test of oneupsmanship.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with you that the Arminian errs in not recognizing these degrees of God's love. Some of the Reformed err in not recognizing this two-fold aspect of the will of God and the general love of God towards all, even the non-elect. The OP asked for quotes about God's love towards the non-elect, and I have provided some.
> 
> If someone proclaims the love of God for the whole world or for all mankind, and, instead of affirming this general truth, you spend 20 minutes countering this supposed "Arminian heresy" - then you've got the wrong kind of Calvinism.
> 
> If the majority of your next sermon on John 3:16 is why "world" does not really mean world, instead of using the bulk of your time to emphasize the huge-ness of the love of God, then you've got the wrong kind of Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're using the second person here to refer to me but I'm simply trying to deal with a complex issue in the complexity that it comes at us.
> 
> The issue of Arminians was brought up by the OP and as much as we quote Calvin or the Puritans on the need to prolifically proclaim the Gospel of the Father's offer of salvation to all and that this is the love of God revealed then I'm merely pointing out that they will not accept this as love if they insist upon an indiscriminate love that God shows all men equally or it is no love at all. I'm not so much interested in scoring points or determining how I'm going to preach a sermon in response to this but simply ensuring people are aware of this. I don't need to change anything about how much I plead with sinners or apologize to them about whether God has an electing love that is irrelevant to the point of whether, Today, if they hear His voice they are not to harden their hearts. I leave such things to the Spirit.
> 
> With respect to the "Reformed" you seem to say "err", what I'm trying to determine is whether you actually sweep Calvin into that group for the distinctions he himself makes or if there is a "Calvin vs the Calvinists" or "Puritans against some Reformed people today" thing going on.
> 
> We can all agree that God's love is expressed in anthropopathetic language in the call for the repentance of sinners in the offer of the Gospel. We can even agree that there is a love and benevolence that is wide and free for sin-cursed humanity in the sending of the Son. If we left it at that then there would be no debates.
> 
> What I sense you're calling "error" is when people get into discussions trying to unpack the first two types of love that Calvin describes and some insist there needs to be something of that third type of love "flowing into" the first two types of love for the first two types of love to be "sincere" and "well meant".
> 
> Thus, when you quote a bunch of things that all agree upon - the first two kinds of love that Calvin notes above and describes them as such, you're not necessarily showing others as being in error. The real question (which I'm not sure you've addressed yourself) is whether "well meant offer" means more than what Calvin and the Puritans seemed to agree upon - a conditional promise made prolifically. It's when we get to unconditional Promises that things get dicey and we need to sort out whether someone has defined "well meant offer" in a different manner.
> 
> I know this is terribly tedious and I'm not trying to be tedious but the discussion about the necessity of limited atonement is fruitful because the unconditional Promise of faith has consequences in whether we can produce a kind of faith that some would say we have to exercise in order for God's offer to be "sincere" so these aren't simply academic discussions or a test of oneupsmanship.
Click to expand...


Hi Rich. No, I am not referring to you when I use the second person. I recently met several "Hard-Shell Baptists" who deny that God in any way at all loves the non-elect. They also denied common grace. These Hardshellers seemed even more grievous to me than the ignorant Arminian who mistakenly believes that there is no discrimination in God's love but that God loves everyone the same way. 

I don't think you are being tedious; I think some nuance is needed as you state above, so that folks don't fall into the mistaken belief that God loves everyone the same (which seems to lead to the conclusion that any difference in eternal destinies then is not due to discrimination in the love of God, but determined by some act on the part of the sinner). By the Reformed that "err" I refer to Hoeksema and his tribe.

Calvin and others referred to a general or paternal love of a Creator to his creation. God loves mankind. God loves the world. I have supplied quotes and my purpose is not to score points but to demonstrate that the majority Reformed position sides with me that God does, in fact, love the non-elect (though, of course, we must define that love carefully). Even whole denominations have written position papers on this, like the OPC, where the majority position is precisely what I am asserting (though, admittedly, there is also a well-written minority report in that position paper as well). 

To go further, it was not merely that Calvin and others believed that God gave promises to those who believed. As you have said, this is agreed upon by all. I further believe that these offers were "well-meant" and sincere offers. God wants people to be saved. Turretin seems to indicate as much in the link above. And Calvin says the following:



> “…so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.”



and Matthew Henry in his commentary says the following:



> “Though many of the world of mankind perish, yet God’s giving his only-begotten Son was an instance of his love to the whole world, because through him there is a general offer of life and salvation made to all.”


Those two quotes are what I believe. 

My goal is not one-upmanship. I believe this issue has HUGE implications for missions. My goal for defending this doctrine (despite your seeming assertion that it makes no difference in determining evangelistic zeal) is to preserve one of the motivations for missions. It seems a terrible inconsistency for God's missionaries (who desire to mirror the heart of God) to sincerely desire the salvation of the lost, and for God not to do the same.

While many will say that this doctrine does not impact missions or churches as we go out and declare the promises to all nations, I have yet to see a proportionate missions effort by those who deny the well-meant offer when compared with those who do. I am sure there are some churches who follow Hoeksema who are actively engaged in missions, but the Arminians, who err the other direction as concerning the love of God, put us to shame in their mission efforts. ...And the Hard-shell baptists of 200 years ago who denied such things in England prior to Fuller and Carey served to produce a spiritual "dunghill" as Andrew Fuller described it... before he wrote his great work, _The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation_.


----------



## MW

> the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.”



The human race does not perish, as was noted the last time this quotation was brought to our attention.

The use of an indefinite universal does not prove a particular universal. The proposition, Christ came into the world to save sinners, does not entail that Christ came into the world to save each and every individual sinner.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Trinity Apologetics said:


> ...freely admitting that God has love for the non-elect/reprobate (and maybe even desires their salvation in some sense)...



Just ran across this today, from William Perkins, Commentary on Rev. 3:


Vers. 20. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in unto him, and will sup with him, and he with me."​
In the words of this verse, there be two *signs of his love* set down. First, *a hearty desire of their conversion, which He earnestly seeks*: Secondly, a promise of mutual fellowship after their conversion. The first, in these words; *Behold, I stand at the door and knock: In this desire, Christ expresses* two things; First, that *this Church (if we regard the greatest part thereof) had no true fellowship with Christ, nor Christ with them; for He stands at the door of their hearts, which were closed up against Him*. This may seem strange, but the case is evident: for though they had in them many good things; as knowledge of God's will, and did profess the Gospel, and were partakers of the signs and seals of the Covenant of grace; yet they were tainted with this notorious sin of *Luke-warmness, which closed up the door of their heart against Christ and barred him out.*

...

"And knock." *Here is a further signification of his desire of their conversion*. Wherein we may behold his great & unspeakable mercy towards this Church, and in them towards all other his Children. *This Church had bard out Christ by their sins: and yet he pursues them, He knocks; He uses means to enter for* [?] good; and vouchsafes them mercy...​


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A09443.0001.001/1:8?rgn=div1;view=fulltext


----------



## timfost

Pergamum said:


> While many will say that this doctrine does not impact missions or churches as we go out and declare the promises to all nations, I have yet to see a proportionate missions effort by those who deny the well-meant offer when compared with those who do. I am sure there are some churches who follow Hoeksema who are actively engaged in missions, but the Arminians, who err the other direction as concerning the love of God, put us to shame in their mission efforts. ...And the Hard-shell baptists of 200 years ago who denied such things in England prior to Fuller and Carey served to produce a spiritual "dunghill" as Andrew Fuller described it... before he wrote his great work, _The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation_.



If we are to imitate Paul, as he imitated Christ (1 Cor. 11:1), how do we have an example of what the gospel offer looks like if Christ didn't sincerely offer it to all? If Christ didn't sincerely offer it, I guess we need to look to Paul for an example, not to Christ.

I'm thankful for the desire of all on PB to proclaim the word of God freely regardless of their stance on the free offer. However, for those two deny the sincere offer as coming from God, I wonder how their position affects their evangelism when they don't have a divine example to look upon?


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> While many will say that this doctrine does not impact missions or churches as we go out and declare the promises to all nations, I have yet to see a proportionate missions effort by those who deny the well-meant offer when compared with those who do. I am sure there are some churches who follow Hoeksema who are actively engaged in missions, but the Arminians, who err the other direction as concerning the love of God, put us to shame in their mission efforts. ...And the Hard-shell baptists of 200 years ago who denied such things in England prior to Fuller and Carey served to produce a spiritual "dunghill" as Andrew Fuller described it... before he wrote his great work, _The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to imitate Paul, as he imitated Christ (1 Cor. 11:1), how do we have an example of what the gospel offer looks like if Christ didn't sincerely offer it to all? If Christ didn't sincerely offer it, I guess we need to look to Paul for an example, not to Christ.
> 
> I'm thankful for the desire of all on PB to proclaim the word of God freely regardless of their stance on the free offer. However, for those two deny the sincere offer as coming from God, I wonder how their position affects their evangelism when they don't have a divine example to look upon?
Click to expand...


The Christ who is on the throne in heaven is the same God-man who wept over Jerusalem and stated a desire to gather her. I don't think his tears were a charade.


----------



## Travis Fentiman

Pergamum said:


> ...the same God-man who wept over Jerusalem and stated a desire to gather her. I don't think his tears were a charade.




Great point Pergamum. 

*Anthony Burgess the Westminster divine* agrees:


...grant the Text [Eze. 33:11] to be comprehensive of Eternal death, as many other places are; such that, *God would not have any to perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth*, &c. *1 Tim. 2.:4*. Then the answer is known, which may easily be made good, though it be not my work now, *God has an approving will*, and an effective or decreeing will. *God’s approving will is carried out to the objects, as good in it self*; but Gods Effective will is, when He intends to bring a thing about. God had an approving will, that Adam should stand, therefore He gave him a command, and threatened him if he did fall; yet He had not an effective will, to make him to stand, for then who could have hindered it? Thus *Christ’s tears over Jerusalem (How often would I have gathered thee, and thou wouldest not?) were not Crocodiles’ tears (as some say the Calvinists make them)* for though Christ, as God, had not decreed the conversion of the Jews, yet *the thing it self was approved of, and commanded, and he as the Minister of the New Testament, affectionately desired it*: So here in the Text, *God by this pathetical expression, does declare, how acceptable and desireable a thing it is in itself, that the Jews should be converted*; how distasteful and unpleasant their damnation was: therefore mark the expression, He does not say, I do not will *the death of the wicked, but I have no pleasure in it*: And if that of the Arminians be true, that God does effectually will the conversion of all, why then are not all converted? Who hath resisted his will? but I intend grapes, and not thorns; practical not controversal matter from this Text.​

Spiritual Refining, Sermon 66, “Showing that the Damnation of Wicked Men is unpleasing to God, and that which He delights not in.” p. 403-408

Anthony Burgess on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel


----------



## MW

> and he as the Minister of the New Testament, affectionately desired it



This, together with the commission to preach the gospel to every creature, suffices to provide a lively example and the strongest motivation to all ministers of the New Testament to desire, pray for, and seek after the salvation of lost sinners. There is no reason to go further and search out the unsearchable counsel of God.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> The Christ who is on the throne in heaven is the same God-man who wept over Jerusalem and stated a desire to gather her. I don't think his tears were a charade.



Of this I agree in that He wept then, though does He weep now?


----------



## timfost

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christ who is on the throne in heaven is the same God-man who wept over Jerusalem and stated a desire to gather her. I don't think his tears were a charade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of this I agree in that He wept then, though does He weep now?
Click to expand...


"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb. 13:8)


----------



## MW

timfost said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of this I agree in that He wept then, though does He weep now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb. 13:8)
Click to expand...


He is not being born now; He is not ministering to the Jews on earth now; He is not stilling the water now; He is not praying in Gethsemane now; He is not dying on Calvary now; He is not rising from the dead now; He is not ascending into heaven now.


----------



## earl40

MW said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of this I agree in that He wept then, though does He weep now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Heb. 13:8)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not being born now; He is not ministering to the Jews on earth now; He is not stilling the water now; He is not praying in Gethsemane now; He is not dying on Calvary now; He is not rising from the dead now; He is not ascending into heaven now.
Click to expand...


Nor is He weeping now. Our Pastors are charged with the proclamation of The Gospel now and I shall weep with and pray for them as they do such.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Nor is He weeping now.



Correct. He is now sitting at the right hand of God, which, according to the Larger Catechism, means "that as God-man He is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father, *with all fulness of joy*, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth." It will be wonderful to enter into the joy of the Lord, when He shall wipe away all tears from our eyes!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Travis Fentiman said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the same God-man who wept over Jerusalem and stated a desire to gather her. I don't think his tears were a charade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great point Pergamum.
> 
> *Anthony Burgess the Westminster divine* agrees:
> 
> 
> ...grant the Text [Eze. 33:11] to be comprehensive of Eternal death, as many other places are; such that, *God would not have any to perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth*, &c. *1 Tim. 2.:4*. Then the answer is known, which may easily be made good, though it be not my work now, *God has an approving will*, and an effective or decreeing will. *God’s approving will is carried out to the objects, as good in it self*; but Gods Effective will is, when He intends to bring a thing about. God had an approving will, that Adam should stand, therefore He gave him a command, and threatened him if he did fall; yet He had not an effective will, to make him to stand, for then who could have hindered it? Thus *Christ’s tears over Jerusalem (How often would I have gathered thee, and thou wouldest not?) were not Crocodiles’ tears (as some say the Calvinists make them)* for though Christ, as God, had not decreed the conversion of the Jews, yet *the thing it self was approved of, and commanded, and he as the Minister of the New Testament, affectionately desired it*: So here in the Text, *God by this pathetical expression, does declare, how acceptable and desireable a thing it is in itself, that the Jews should be converted*; how distasteful and unpleasant their damnation was: therefore mark the expression, He does not say, I do not will *the death of the wicked, but I have no pleasure in it*: And if that of the Arminians be true, that God does effectually will the conversion of all, why then are not all converted? Who hath resisted his will? but I intend grapes, and not thorns; practical not controversal matter from this Text.​
> 
> Spiritual Refining, Sermon 66, “Showing that the Damnation of Wicked Men is unpleasing to God, and that which He delights not in.” p. 403-408
> 
> Anthony Burgess on the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel
Click to expand...


Gentlemen,

This is a good example of how the Puritans could speak boldly without also sacrificing certain Truths.

What's interesting in these discussions is how people will equivocate and acknowledge in one part of a discussion that there are some distinctions to be made about how God loves but then call to task those who make those distinctions.

Here's a good example. Are you quoting this, Travis, because you agree or disagree with Matthew? I ask because if you're disagreeing with Matthew then you ought not to have posted something that agrees with the point he is trying to make.

Notice the distinction that Burgess makes about the kind of will it is that expresses a desire in God that is real. It is the same distinction we've been making all along about a _type_ of love for the lost that is expressed in the manner than Calvin did - a love for the world at large, a love expressed to those who hear the Gospel, and a love specifically for the elect. Yet the first two types of love are what Burgess calls a "pathetical expression" - the thing is true in iself that the Jews should be converted. Thus, Burgess notes that it is real concern for people based on a revealed desire (that is God has revealed a call to sinners to repent).

That revealed desire that God has for men to repent _is sufficient for us_. It is sufficient that God has called us to preach to sinners and that He has loved the world and sinners and sent the Gospel into the world to redeem.

The moment we start asking about "how much" God loves those people or start asking questions of decree and hidden things is when we get into trouble. We don't need to know, as creatures, how God really "feels" about people in order to be sorrowful that the wicked should perish. God, as He is in Himself, is not our example. We are creatures. It is enough to know that what has been revealed is the repentance of sinners and a desire that men would come to salvation.

It seems to me that when we start claiming that it's not enough that God's love is shown to sinners by sending His Son into the world and sending His Gospel forward then we're getting into the same kind of trouble that others are. For we also believe that God's decree does not depend upon the will of the creature and His fore-love of the elect is very precious and specific. We also, in pathetic language, have this fore-love of the elect compared to reprobation to the point that it says that God "hates" those He passes over. Thus, we twist ourselves in pretzels when we try to press things too hard and start lecturing each other that you can't possibly be motivated to preach profusely until we know the true mind of God and what it "really" means that He desires the repentance of others.

I think Burgess' explanation is perfectly sound but I see others not content here and push God's desire past what Burgess is saying or even Calvin and keep mixing in other kinds of love and desire in God. If they believe in those kinds of desires then they ought not be using Calvin or Burgess or others to support that notion.

I can (and do) care about the lost and I think that God's revealed desire for sinners shows more love than I'm capable of mustering. It is sufficient for me as His creature to preach the Word, pleading with real tears that men would repent.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is a curious quote by R.L. Dabney:



> "The yet more explicit passage in Luke 19:41,42, has given our extremists still more trouble. We are told that Christ wept over the very men whose doom of reprobation he then pronounced. Again, the question is raised by them, if Christ felt this tender compassion for them, why did he not exert his omnipotence for their effectual calling?
> 
> And their best answer seems to be, that here it was not the divine nature in Jesus that wept, but the humanity only. Now, it will readily be conceded that the divine nature was incapable of the pain of sympathetic passion and of the agitation of grief; but we are loath to believe that this precious incident is no manifestation of the passionless, unchangeable, yet infinitely benevolent pity of the divine nature.
> 
> For, first, it would impress the common Christian mind with a most painful feeling to be thus seemingly taught that holy humanity is more generous and tender than God. The humble and simple reader of the gospels had been taught by them that there was no excellence in the humanity which was not the effect and effluence of the corresponding ineffable perfections of the divinity.
> 
> Second, when we hear our Lord speaking of gathering Jerusalem's children as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and then announcing the final doom of the rejected, we seem to hear the divine nature in him, at least as much as the human.
> 
> And third, such interpretations, implying some degree of dissent between the two natures, are perilous, in that they obscure that vital truth, Christ the manifestation to us of the divine nature .... It is our happiness to believe that when we see Jesus weeping over lost Jerusalem, we 'have seen the Father,' we have received an insight into the divine benevolence and pity."



http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/sbet/08-1_001.pdf

I am not sure what I think of that quote. But, I do believe that the actions of Jesus show us the nature of God, such that his affections for even the lost are significant, especially since He has revealed a desire to save and a paternal fatherly love to all of creation. Christ's actions are a model to us, and He wept over the lost and desired to gather them. As Dabney queries, are we to believe that "humanity is more generous and tender than God"? Yes, there are degrees of love and desire, yet it seems that God loves all and desires their good (though not always to the point of saving them).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> As Dabney queries, are we to believe that "humanity is more generous and tender than God"? Yes, there are degrees of love and desire, yet it seems that God loves all and desires their good (though not always to the point of saving them).


At the end of the day I think this is the issue that we're trying to wrestle with. There is an inscrutability to the will of God that He loves His creation but He has chosen some for redemption but passed over others to remain objects of His wrath. I think it unhealthy, theologically speaking, to make the basis of our compassion on anything other than the revealed will that God's love for sinner is manifest in His sending of the Son and gives us sufficient motivation to hate to think that any should perish. Let God be God in election.

While I don't think I disagree sharply with Dabney as far as it goes, we can also see from divine Revelation a hatred and judgment for sin. There is a fearful sense of the wrath that abides upon sin throughout the Scriptures. In my daily Scripture reading today I was reading of the judgment of Saul's descendants because Saul had slaughtered a bunch of Gibeonites and it makes one wince to think that 7 descendants of Saul were demanded by the Gibeonites because of a famine on the land due to Saul's sin. What families might have died during the famine? Do we think it horrific that Saul's descendants would be hanged for something he did? Shifting to other portions of Scripture - what of the judgment on Jericho meted out by the Israelites?

Christ came into the world not to judge because the world was already under judgment. Even as we look on the work of Christ as coming into a world of darkness so that the kindness of God was expressed against the backdrop of a Curse that He Himself had subjected creation to, we must not forget that the Curse is a manifestation of the will of God toward sin as well.

In a sense, then, we can see the love of God expressed in the sending of the Son and His willingness to save sinners. Thus we know we can have compassion and truly weep for them as Christ did. But, we can also press this too hard and conclude this is the only disposition that the Triune God has toward sinners because we also know that the wrath of God abides and that, by nature, men are children of wrath. It's not our station to imitate God in His wrath toward sin because He doesn't need our help. Our ministry is the ministry of reconciliation and so we call sinners to repentance. We don't want to conclude, however, that the Curse that abides is something that God is ultimately "at odds". It's not as if God is against a Curse that is somebody else's Curse. It's not as if He's upset that some other actor has Cursed or that some other actor is the most ultimate enemy of sinners. He, Himself, is at enmity with sin.

I'm not as eloquent as others and forgive me for rambling as I try to articulate but I'm perfectly comfortable with the manner that Calvin and the Puritans articulated this. We simply don't need to try to sort the complexity of God's emotional life and how He views sinners both as objects of His wrath and those to Whom Christ came to save. It is sufficient that ours is a ministry of reconciliation and so our calling is to be focused not on the condemnation of sinners but the proclamation of the work of Christ that reconciles sinners to God.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Dabney queries, are we to believe that "humanity is more generous and tender than God"? Yes, there are degrees of love and desire, yet it seems that God loves all and desires their good (though not always to the point of saving them).
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day I think this is the issue that we're trying to wrestle with. There is an inscrutability to the will of God that He loves His creation but He has chosen some for redemption but passed over others to remain objects of His wrath. I think it unhealthy, theologically speaking, to make the basis of our compassion on anything other than the revealed will that God's love for sinner is manifest in His sending of the Son and gives us sufficient motivation to hate to think that any should perish. Let God be God in election.
> 
> While I don't think I disagree sharply with Dabney as far as it goes, we can also see from divine Revelation a hatred and judgment for sin. There is a fearful sense of the wrath that abides upon sin throughout the Scriptures. In my daily Scripture reading today I was reading of the judgment of Saul's descendants because Saul had slaughtered a bunch of Gibeonites and it makes one wince to think that 7 descendants of Saul were demanded by the Gibeonites because of a famine on the land due to Saul's sin. What families might have died during the famine? Do we think it horrific that Saul's descendants would be hanged for something he did? Shifting to other portions of Scripture - what of the judgment on Jericho meted out by the Israelites?
> 
> Christ came into the world not to judge because the world was already under judgment. Even as we look on the work of Christ as coming into a world of darkness so that the kindness of God was expressed against the backdrop of a Curse that He Himself had subjected creation to, we must not forget that the Curse is a manifestation of the will of God toward sin as well.
> 
> In a sense, then, we can see the love of God expressed in the sending of the Son and His willingness to save sinners. Thus we know we can have compassion and truly weep for them as Christ did. But, we can also press this too hard and conclude this is the only disposition that the Triune God has toward sinners because we also know that the wrath of God abides and that, by nature, men are children of wrath. It's not our station to imitate God in His wrath toward sin because He doesn't need our help. Our ministry is the ministry of reconciliation and so we call sinners to repentance. We don't want to conclude, however, that the Curse that abides is something that God is ultimately "at odds". It's not as if God is against a Curse that is somebody else's Curse. It's not as if He's upset that some other actor has Cursed or that some other actor is the most ultimate enemy of sinners. He, Himself, is at enmity with sin.
> 
> I'm not as eloquent as others and forgive me for rambling as I try to articulate but I'm perfectly comfortable with the manner that Calvin and the Puritans articulated this. We simply don't need to try to sort the complexity of God's emotional life and how He views sinners both as objects of His wrath and those to Whom Christ came to save. It is sufficient that ours is a ministry of reconciliation and so our calling is to be focused not on the condemnation of sinners but the proclamation of the work of Christ that reconciles sinners to God.
Click to expand...


You're not rambling. I think I get your concerns, and I think I agree.


----------



## timfost

Rich,

Thank you for trying to bring closure to this. I also appreciate how are are careful not to look to far into "the complexity of God's emotional life." 

I think one of the difficulties of this conversation is in the extent of the word "sinners." At bottom, not all in this conversation are agreed as to the extent of this category. Some are wanting to say that He desires the repentance of all _indefinitely_, meaning that this expression does not apply to every _individual_ sinner. Others are arguing that in a real sense He desires the repentance of every sinner according to His revealed will. 

The difference seems to be in this: *1.* Those who promote sinners as an indefinite category mean to say that He desires the salvation of the elect alone, but since "sinners" is a comprehensive term encompassing all of mankind, the term becomes indefinite so that it can be reconciled to God's decree to save the elect. *2.* On the other side, those who promote that He has a revealed desire to save sinners use the term "sinners" to comprehend _all_ sinners. In other words, those who would agree with the second description are not trying to reconcile this desire with His decree, which is also biblically called His desire.

When we look at reformed writings, there is not consensus on this issue. 

As a firm advocate for a sincere desire in God for the repentance of _all_ sinners, what most concerns me about this conversation is in relation to the idea that Christ's weeping over Jerusalem is being promoted as a kind of temporary disposition. If Christ is the image of the invisible God, was He not representing God in His disposition? The Belgic says that "these two natures [human, divine] are so closely united in one Person that they were not separated even by His death" (Article 19). If anything about Christ can be attributed to the human nature, it would be His death. But the confession is careful not even to separate His divine nature from the human when the human nature died. Therefore, if Christ represented only a temporary disposition, it seems that we charge Him with a changeable nature and sever the human from the divine.

The union of His two natures surpasses all understanding, but let's not let our finite little minds get in the way of what is revealed.

I don't think anyone is intentionally separating the human and divine natures, but I just wanted to voice what deeply concerns me about this thread.


----------



## earl40

timfost said:


> Rich,
> 
> Thank you for trying to bring closure to this. I also appreciate how are are careful not to look to far into "the complexity of God's emotional life."
> 
> I think one of the difficulties of this conversation is in the extent of the word "sinners." At bottom, not all in this conversation are agreed as to the extent of this category. Some are wanting to say that He desires the repentance of all _indefinitely_, meaning that this expression does not apply to every _individual_ sinner. Others are arguing that in a real sense He desires the repentance of every sinner according to His revealed will.
> 
> The difference seems to be in this: *1.* Those who promote sinners as an indefinite category mean to say that He desires the salvation of the elect alone, but since "sinners" is a comprehensive term encompassing all of mankind, the term becomes indefinite so that it can be reconciled to God's decree to save the elect. *2.* On the other side, those who promote that He has a revealed desire to save sinners use the term "sinners" to comprehend _all_ sinners. In other words, those who would agree with the second description are not trying to reconcile this desire with His decree, which is also biblically called His desire.
> 
> When we look at reformed writings, there is not consensus on this issue.
> 
> As a firm advocate for a sincere desire in God for the repentance of _all_ sinners, what most concerns me about this conversation is in relation to the idea that Christ's weeping over Jerusalem is being promoted as a kind of temporary disposition. If Christ is the image of the invisible God, was He not representing God in His disposition? The Belgic says that "these two natures [human, divine] are so closely united in one Person that they were not separated even by His death" (Article 19). If anything about Christ can be attributed to the human nature, it would be His death. But the confession is careful not even to separate His divine nature from the human when the human nature died. Therefore, if Christ represented only a temporary disposition, it seems that we charge Him with a changeable nature and sever the human from the divine.
> 
> The union of His two natures surpasses all understanding, but let's not let our finite little minds get in the way of what is revealed.
> 
> I don't think anyone is intentionally separating the human and divine natures, but I just wanted to voice what deeply concerns me about this thread.



Tim I agree that there is much disagreement within the reformed on this issue and that "issue" is posting a desire in God that is unfulfilled. So far as separating the human nature of Jesus from the divine nature we must not separate but in saying this we must also distinguish between them. This is one area that the reformed should shine like a beacon of light in the world and unfortunately it is becoming dimmer because of the issue of whether God has passions. I know this is a difficult area that In my most humble opinion our pastors avoid teaching such because of two possible reasons. The first is they do not believe God is without passions or that they do not really understand this issue enough to covey it to the sheep. The second issue is they are afraid to speak bluntly on this issue because of the pastoral heart they have. Allow me speak bluntly, there is no such thing of the "emotional life of God" and also when Jesus died His human soul or spirit went to heaven and that human part of his human nature did not die. I wish not to offend you in any way but my conscience on this issue compels me to respond as one layman to another and your post here defines the error in your thinking on this issue. Once again I mean no offence but only concern for what you believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timfost said:


> As a firm advocate for a sincere desire in God for the repentance of all sinners, what most concerns me about this conversation is in relation to the idea that Christ's weeping over Jerusalem is being promoted as a kind of temporary disposition. If Christ is the image of the invisible God, was He not representing God in His disposition? The Belgic says that "these two natures [human, divine] are so closely united in one Person that they were not separated even by His death" (Article 19). If anything about Christ can be attributed to the human nature, it would be His death. But the confession is careful not even to separate His divine nature from the human when the human nature died. Therefore, if Christ represented only a temporary disposition, it seems that we charge Him with a changeable nature and sever the human from the divine.
> 
> The union of His two natures surpasses all understanding, but let's not let our finite little minds get in the way of what is revealed.
> 
> I don't think anyone is intentionally separating the human and divine natures, but I just wanted to voice what deeply concerns me about this thread.



Tim,

I would note a few things.

First, we can only know what God has revealed and since we cannot get specific into the Divine mind and determine how God views a particular sinner, in Himself, we're left with the revelation about how God views sinners and not specifics.

I would also add that appealing to Jesus may actually prove the point. Christ wept over Jerusalem but He was also very sharp toward the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Scribes. There are plenty oracles of woe and imprecatory Psalms to reveal that the disposition toward specific people is not always one of weeping. Christ commanded His own disciples to shake the dust off their feet when a person would not welcome them. Paul was very sharp in his condemnation of Judaizers. It's not as if we can unequivocally state that, even from a human standpoint, each and every sinner's rebellion is to be viewed with weeping.

Again, these are complex issues but we need to remember that there is an inscrutability in the Divine will. Unless we want to take the Barthian route to make the Logos incarnate's passions be taken up into the nature of the Godhead itself we need to be careful as to how much we assert that Jesus' emotions and reactions are templates for how we understand God's will.

I also think that it's important to remember the quotes provided in this thread about the Puritans and Calvin make clear that a consistent distinction is made about the nature of God's love toward sinners is evident. It is found not in peering into things hidden about how the Godhead really sorts out condemnation/Gospel offer but in the historical Revelation that we have access to by creatures that we can see the love of God manifest in the ministry of reconciliation.

Just to note a practical example, the issue of how we comfort believers who have lost their infant children came up at a Presbytery exam today in the committee I participate in. I was exhorting the candidate that we err if we start getting into the decree and noting that we can't have perfect assurance that a child is saved because we don't know the mind of God. That's not even how we know whether we are truly saved. I told him that we need to fall back on God's promise that He would be God to us and our children. That promise is sufficient to give grieving parents assurance that they need not doubt the salvation of their infant child who died.

In like manner, the promulgation of the Gospel is sufficient evident to sinners that God is sincere in His offer to save sinners without having to delve into the mysteries of the Divine mind to determine whether He has specific interest in a particular individual and just "how much" interest that entails.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I believe this is the problem with leading with strong meat..... Election is Gods business, I'm not going to try to place limitations on the extent of His grace based on hidden decrees.... This is futile territory. And is why guys like Beeke and Calvin don't always sound so Calvinistic and that is not always such a bad thing.... Know your theology but leave room for Gospel


----------



## JimmyH

Who are the many going on the 'broad way that leads to destruction' if God's gift of faith leading to salvation is universal ? Matthew 7:13,14


----------



## AJ Castellitto

This topic/thread is paradox territory...... 

In scriptures the triune God is often furious with the unrepentant & rebellious.... So the blame falls on the shoulders of the rebellious not the hidden elective decrees of God..... So we are the issue here.... That's the starting point, not the hidden but the revealed. Obviously God also mentions many places how 'they' were never of us ..... So we know there is an elect...... I've ran in circles where we never got past election. We waited around for some type of evidence of being chosen... There is much danger in that. The door is wide open for those willing to take the narrow way. If God didn't love us then what was Jesus for? Now, what will we do with this truth? He came down for us and we have an obligation to respond..... That's the bottom line. I no longer argue strong meat with babes..... I've broken out of that cage


----------



## AJ Castellitto

JimmyH said:


> Who are the many going on the 'broad way that leads to destruction' if God's gift of faith leading to salvation is universal ? Matthew 7:13,14


who here mentioned universalism? Arminians don't even believe that


----------



## Pergamum

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/reformed-theology-vs-hyper-calvinism/



> Does God love everybody, or is His kindness simply a cloak for His wrath — fattening the wicked for the slaughter, as some hyper-Calvinists have argued?
> 
> Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this divine attitude.
> 
> The doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even to the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is only one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must be said that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the fall, can only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails that we dare not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also to sustain the non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. While it is among the sweetest consolations for believers, election is not the whole story of God’s dealing with this world.
> 
> When we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in all of its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and sustained by God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect but also of God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. Thus, unbelievers can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads against the fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, concluding that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among unbelievers, we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows such gifts of His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15).



http://www.gty.org/blog/B110706/does-god-love-his-enemies



> For months, I had been wrestling with the question of whether God’s love extends beyond those He chose for salvation. “Does God love all humanity, even the Judas Iscariots and Adolf Hitlers of the world?” At the time, I couldn’t answer that question with any degree of certainty. And although I was sitting under sound biblical teaching, I had begun entertaining the idea that God’s elect have a monopoly on His love. I couldn't reconcile the idea of God loving His enemies with the following texts:
> 
> Psalm 5:5, “You hate all workers of iniquity.”
> Psalm 7:11, “God is angry with the wicked every day.”
> Psalm 26:5, “I have hated the assembly of evil doers.”
> Beyond those troubling texts, I was grappling with God’s explicit statements about hating Esau found in Romans 9 and Malachi 1. “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” You have to admit, that’s a hard verse to refute. God’s hatred was unrelated to Esau’s conduct or character. It was rooted in His eternal, sovereign purposes.
> 
> The more I pondered those verses, the more resistant I became to acknowledging God’s love to all humanity. I failed to see the tragic effects such thinking had on my evangelistic fervency. I had adopted a self-righteous mindset, thinking God was absolutely repulsed by unbelievers—probably just as repulsed as I was. I became blind to all the Scriptures speaking to God’s steadfast love and compassion for the lost. Somewhere along the way, my love and compassion for sinners waned.
> 
> I was convinced in my own mind. God loves the elect and hates the non-elect. End of discussion.
> 
> But then, I read the following words by John MacArthur:
> 
> Scripture clearly says that God is love. “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145:9). Christ even commands us to love our enemies, and the reason He gives is this: “In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). The clear implication is that in some sense God loves His enemies. He loves both “the evil and the good,” both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in precisely the same sense we are commanded to love our enemies.
> 
> In fact, the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31; cf. Leviticus 19:18), is a commandment for us to love everyone. We can be certain the scope of this commandment is universal, because Luke 10 records that a lawyer, “wishing to justify himself . . . said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (Luke 10:29)—and Jesus answered with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The point? Even Samaritans, a semi-pagan race who had utterly corrupted Jewish worship and whom the Jews generally detested as enemies of God, were neighbors whom they were commanded to love. In other words, the command to love one’s “neighbor” applies to everyone. This love commanded here is clearly a universal, indiscriminate love.
> 
> Consider this: Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law in every respect (Matthew 5:17–18), including this command for universal love. His love for others was surely as far-reaching as His own application of the commandment in Luke 10. Therefore, we can be certain that He loved everyone. He must have loved everyone in order to fulfill the Law. After all, the apostle Paul wrote, “The whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:14). He reiterates this theme in Romans 13:8: “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” Therefore, Jesus must have loved His “neighbor.” And since He Himself defined “neighbor” in universal terms, we know that His love while on earth was universal.
> 
> Do we imagine that Jesus as perfect man loves those whom Jesus as God does not love? Would God command us to love in a way that He does not? Would God demand that our love be more far-reaching than His own? And did Christ, having loved all humanity during His earthly sojourn, then revert after His ascension to pure hatred for the non-elect? Such would be unthinkable; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) (John MacArthur, The God Who Loves, 102-03).
> 
> John’s simple explanation of those Scriptures compelled me to rethink my position on God’s love. Jesus was God. Jesus loved His neighbors—even His non-elect neighbors. Jesus was a friend to sinners. Jesus loved His enemies—all of them. How could I have missed that? What caused me to overlook such clear, vital truths about the character of God? The answer is pride, that hideous sin lurking in all of us, waiting for the opportunity to express itself.
> 
> If you wrestle with some of the verses I listed, or struggle to reconcile God’s love with his wrath, I’d recommend you pick up a copy of John’s book The God Who Loves.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> Do we imagine that Jesus as perfect man loves those whom Jesus as God does not love? Would God command us to love in a way that He does not? Would God demand that our love be more far-reaching than His own? And did Christ, having loved all humanity during His earthly sojourn, then revert after His ascension to pure hatred for the non-elect? Such would be unthinkable; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Hebrews 13:8) (John MacArthur, The God Who Loves, 102-03).



*Do we imagine that Jesus as perfect man loves those whom Jesus as God does not love?*

One should love all men the same way Our Lord Jesus did while He was on earth. In saying this I would predicate this love according to His humanity in that He could weep over Jerusalem with a sincere desire that they _should_ come to repentance. Now in saying this Jesus does not weep today in heaven as the resurrected savior even though His will has not changed so far as to what all men _should_ do. I think the desire of His humanity in heaven is different in that any emotion expressed by Him now is nothing but one of complete "fullness and joy" which was swallowed up in victory and which is enjoyed with all the saints who also only experience the same emotion without weeping. 

*Would God command us to love in a way that He does not?*

We no doubt should love all men with the resignation that it is only by His decretive will that any should come to repentance and faith. So even though we love all men with the hope that they should come to Him we should understand our hope is subservient to His decretive will. 

*Would God demand that our love be more far-reaching than His own?*

It appears that Pastor MacArthur may be confusing the human nature of Jesus in His earthly ministry with His resurrected human nature today. I say this in that it appears Pastor MacArthur is mixing up the idea of common grace and saving grace. 


*And did Christ, having loved all humanity during His earthly sojourn, then revert after His ascension to pure hatred for the non-elect? Such would be unthinkable; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever”  *

As pointed out before Jesus is not the same in that He no longer weeps. Yes He is still human but that human nature is a victorious one that is different than one (nature) which suffered while here during His ministry. Was there a "revert"? No but there was a change in His human nature which no more suffers or weeps.


----------



## JimmyH

AJ Castellitto said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the many going on the 'broad way that leads to destruction' if God's gift of faith leading to salvation is universal ? Matthew 7:13,14
> 
> 
> 
> who here mentioned universalism? Arminians don't even believe that
Click to expand...


I wasn't responding to your post previous to mine. Rather to some that have gone before. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the thrust of the argument, that God loves all mankind, and that all mankind is responsible to come to him. That is my interpretation of what some are stating. If that is the case, how can they expect someone 'dead in transgressions and sin' to overcome their blindness/hardness of heart, unless they are elect, and led by the Spirit ? 1 Corinthians 2:14 Perhaps I am mistaking the definition of universalism ?


----------



## AJ Castellitto

JimmyH said:


> AJ Castellitto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the many going on the 'broad way that leads to destruction' if God's gift of faith leading to salvation is universal ? Matthew 7:13,14
> 
> 
> 
> who here mentioned universalism? Arminians don't even believe that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't responding to your post previous to mine. Rather to some that have gone before. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the thrust of the argument, that God loves all mankind, and that all mankind is responsible to come to him. That is my interpretation of what some are stating. If that is the case, how can they expect someone 'dead in transgressions and sin' to overcome their blindness/hardness of heart, unless they are elect, and led by the Spirit ? 1 Corinthians 2:14 Perhaps I am mistaking the definition of universalism ?
Click to expand...


Theologically speaking, you are correct....


----------



## AJ Castellitto

For God so loved the world that WHOSOEVER..... Hidden decree..... He loves the elect for Jesus' sake and does not love those who are not in Jesus because they've not been reconciled.... It's not that hard... we are responsible & accountable.... And God holds all non reconciled sinners accountable for their hardened rebellion and animosity toward the righteousness of Christ


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

The problem with John 3:16 is that the subjunctive "whosoever" is not there. Rather, it is the indicative participle "every believing one" in the Greek text. The old KJV translation is inadequate and misleading in my opinion.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Jimmy the Greek said:


> The problem with John 3:16 is that the subjunctive "whosoever" is not there. Rather, it is the indicative participle "every believing one" in the Greek text. The old KJV translation is inadequate and misleading in my opinion.



Regardless, we know why some are not willing and some are made so..... Actually we don't know why but we know that some are only by the grace of God


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jimmy the Greek said:


> The problem with John 3:16 is that the subjunctive "whosoever" is not there. Rather, it is the indicative participle "every believing one" in the Greek text. The old KJV translation is inadequate and misleading in my opinion.



16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα *πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων* εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

πιστεύων is actually a present active, nominative particple and functions as the subject of the subjunctive verbs "should not perish" but "have".

In this case the πᾶς functions to make the idea of "all the believing ones". Participles are funny things and it is not inappropriate to translate this as "whosoever believes" but I also agree that one should not isolate "whosoever" as if it stands apart from believing.


----------



## KMK

Nor should verse 16 be separated from its larger context which includes verses 14 and 15.


----------



## Pergamum

A short comment on the use of kosmos in John 3:16: 

The word "world" in John 3:16 is very unnatural if we try to restrict it to mean "the world of the elect" instead of "mankind" or "the human race." For Calvin says, commenting on John 3:16, "the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." The lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine) all are unanimous to assert that "kosmos" used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." And J.C. Ryle concludes, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."


----------



## timfost

Pergamum said:


> A short comment on the use of kosmos in John 3:16:
> 
> The word "world" in John 3:16 is very unnatural if we try to restrict it to mean "the world of the elect" instead of "mankind" or "the human race." For Calvin says, commenting on John 3:16, "the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." The lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine) all are unanimous to assert that "kosmos" used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." And J.C. Ryle concludes, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."





http://reformedbooksonline.com/topi...fer-of-the-gospel-interpretation-of-john-316/


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> A short comment on the use of kosmos in John 3:16:
> 
> The word "world" in John 3:16 is very unnatural if we try to restrict it to mean "the world of the elect" instead of "mankind" or "the human race." For Calvin says, commenting on John 3:16, "the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." The lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine) all are unanimous to assert that "kosmos" used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." And J.C. Ryle concludes, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."



Perg, who is this post directed toward? I think I missed something. Who said kosmos refers to "the world of the elect"?


----------



## MW

Who would tell an individual that he or she is a reprobate and that God has a love for him or her as a reprobate? A tender-hearted Christian is not going to say such a thing. A gracious Christian would be hopeful the person will come to believe in the Saviour, come to know and believe the saving love of God in Christ, and thereby show that he or she is among the elect of God. So where does this leave the teaching that "God loves the reprobate?" It leaves it in the category of irrelevance, at the very least. There is no place for a doctrine of "love to the reprobate" when nobody thinks of specific individuals we encounter in life in terms of reprobation. It is a doctrine which has arisen from groundless speculation on the part of men. It forms no part of the revelation of grace.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> A short comment on the use of kosmos in John 3:16:



How does this prove that God loves reprobates? Do you believe John 3:16 means "reprobates" when it uses the term "world?" Of course you don't. The text could never be construed to say, "God so loved the [reprobate] world that He gave His only begotten Son." The purpose of giving the Son was to save men from condemnation, not to condemn men. However one understands the term "world" in John 3:16, it does not give the slightest support to the speculation that "God loves the reprobate."


----------



## timfost

Matthew (and all),

You've helped me to understand the nuance in Calvin's use of the whole world (or human race) and elect/reprobate. Since elect/reprobate speaks clearly to God's decree, it does not as much concern His revealed will as it does His decretive will. Since this conversation concerns His love especially in relation to the free offer, it's probably better to keep the word reprobate out of the conversation.

However, Calvin makes abundantly clear that God has a revealed desire for the salvation of every member of the human race as he expounds on in many of the quotes. It seems that while acknowledging that reprobate is not the best term for this conversation, there might be less confusion if we stick to Calvin's own words:

"that he would have them all to be saved..." and "But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish?"

It would seem that Calvin promoted that God has a revealed desire for the salvation of every member of the human race. This is not an indefinite, but a definite category of people. But to say that God has a revealed desire to save the reprobate would blur the distinction between what is revealed and what is decreed.

Understandably, this does not solve the problem that we have with definite and indefinite categories, but hopefully it helps to clear up the vocabulary.


----------



## MW

Tim, Doesn't the same revealed will make it clear that God desires to punish those who remain impenitent and unbelieving? This is stated in the same conditional terms as the desire to save sinners. If you say one is definite you have to conclude that the other is definite also. At that point there could be no revelation of grace. An absolute God who desires the punishment of each and every sinner would leave us without any good news.

The conditionality of the revealed will requires us to speak conditionally, and to refrain from conceiving of it in absolute terms. The old theologians used indefinite language for this very reason, Calvin included.


----------



## Pergamum

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> A short comment on the use of kosmos in John 3:16:
> 
> The word "world" in John 3:16 is very unnatural if we try to restrict it to mean "the world of the elect" instead of "mankind" or "the human race." For Calvin says, commenting on John 3:16, "the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." The lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine) all are unanimous to assert that "kosmos" used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." And J.C. Ryle concludes, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, who is this post directed toward? I think I missed something. Who said kosmos refers to "the world of the elect"?
Click to expand...


Preemptive strike. I've heard 2 or 3 sermons now that, when preaching on John 3:16, the Calvinistic preacher spends more time explaining that God does not really love all of mankind (world don't mean world) than explaining the depth and breadth and manner of expression of God's love.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> A short comment on the use of kosmos in John 3:16:
> 
> The word "world" in John 3:16 is very unnatural if we try to restrict it to mean "the world of the elect" instead of "mankind" or "the human race." For Calvin says, commenting on John 3:16, "the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." The lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine) all are unanimous to assert that "kosmos" used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race." And J.C. Ryle concludes, "It seems to be a violent straining of language to confine the word world to the elect...The world means the whole race of mankind...without any exception...I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a [theological] system."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perg, who is this post directed toward? I think I missed something. Who said kosmos refers to "the world of the elect"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Preemptive strike. I've heard 2 or 3 sermons now that, when preaching on John 3:16, the Calvinistic preacher spends more time explaining that God does not really love all of mankind (world don't mean world) than explaining the depth and breadth and manner of expression of God's love.
Click to expand...


No doubt this was toward people who have heard thousands of times the opposite.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Tim, Doesn't the same revealed will make it clear that God desires to punish those who remain impenitent and unbelieving? This is stated in the same conditional terms as the desire to save sinners. If you say one is definite you have to conclude that the other is definite also. At that point there could be no revelation of grace. An absolute God who desires the punishment of each and every sinner would leave us without any good news.
> 
> The conditionality of the revealed will requires us to speak conditionally, and to refrain from conceiving of it in absolute terms. The old theologians used indefinite language for this very reason, Calvin included.



This sums up the "problem" perfectly. I'm not precisely sure what motivates the desire to make God's revealed will to "mercy" more plan than God's revealed will to "judge" sinners. It is precisely because of the clarity of God's wrath toward sin that the Gospel comes as good news.

Let's grant for a moment that God, like we're commanded to, loves His enemies. Actually we don't have to assume that because the Scriptures tell us that His rain falls on both the just and the unjust and a sinner who plants a seed in the ground yields the same harvest (generally) as the righteous. OK, so God loves His enemies but enmity with God is not a good thing.

Look at what's revealed to us in the Gospel that we were, by nature, children of wrath (Eph 2). What's the point in trying to ascertain how much love God has for those outside the Kingdom of God? Do we really believe that grace is as remarkable as it is if, in reality, wrath never abided upon us in our sinful flesh? What have we been rescued from? A God conflicted about the wrath that abides upon us?

I think we need to see the love of God in the sending of the Son to sinners and that's sufficient. When we get into individual cases it begs the question as to how much we really think we've been rescued from wrath when we start to imagine a God who is conflicted about whether He really wants to punish sin because He loves a particular individual.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I think the problem is when we couple God's elective decree with His just condemnation of the unrepentant sinner.... I don't have a problem with it, but I don't place it front and center with babes, but I also don't say GOD loves indiscriminately or minimize the punishment of the perpetually lukewarm..... But again, Im not hanging out with the presumption obsessed internally focused hyper pious outwardly stuck high Calvinists either (that won't even cover half of the loving gospel based instruction or send an invite outside their minuscule circles .....) But I don't get that vibe from any of the participants on this thread, Godspeed!


----------

