Does God love the reprobate?

[Alan D. Strange]

Did Jesus love Judas?

Yes, in the sense of #28, above. As with Cain, Esau, and others revealed in Scripture to be reprobates (although the list of those explicitly revealed as such runs dry quickly).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Matt:

Let me clarify why I answered your question narrowly, in terms of the way that it was put in the OP (which was simply, "Does God love the reprobate?").

That question is not hard to answer: biblically, the answer is clearly "yes, in some sense, as the creature made in His image." However, why Jesus wept over Jerusalem (or like biblical incidents), while tangentially related to that question, is not the same question.

We have no warrant to assume that Jesus' sorrow over Jerusalem was stricly a matter of "loving the reprobate." This is because we have no knowledge that all those over whom He wept were reprobate. Surely, Jerusalem was a mixed multitude containing both reprobate and elect, although many of the elect had not then come to Christ and would do so only at and after Pentecost.

We simply need to be cautious when speaking about the reprobate concretely. While we know that there are reprobates, we do not know who they are (except in a few cases, most of whom have been mentioned in this thread--Cain, Esau, and Judas, for instance). It is not only unhelpful but simply wrongheaded to look at a passage like Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and think "Did He love the reprobate there?"

Better to see His compassion for the mixed multitude and to realize that, for many, though they then rejected Him, they would come soon to embrace him (though the Jews in general reject him until the time of the ingathering--Romans 11:25 ff). Given that many Jews will be gathered in, there is no small sense in which our Lord's compassion expressed here will have Jerusalem's deliverance in some sense as its fruition.

All this is to say, this beautiful text of our Lord weeping over Jerusalem, even as He did over us in our rebellion, should not be reduced to a speculative question about whether God has any sort of love or not for the reprobate. That kind of speculative approach sweeps aside the profound beauty, and tragedy, contained in the text. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and, even more so, has the power to, and does, to the uttermost, save His own. He always does all things well and glory to His name (Romans 11: 33-36).

Peace,
Alan

 

[earl40]

Matt:

Let me clarify why I answered your question narrowly, in terms of the way that it was put in the OP (which was simply, "Does God love the reprobate?").

That question is not hard to answer: biblically, the answer is clearly "yes, in some sense, as the creature made in His image." However, why Jesus wept over Jerusalem (or like biblical incidents), while tangentially related to that question, is not the same question.

We have no warrant to assume that Jesus' sorrow over Jerusalem was stricly a matter of "loving the reprobate." This is because we have no knowledge that all those over whom He wept were reprobate. Surely, Jerusalem was a mixed multitude containing both reprobate and elect, although many of the elect had not then come to Christ and would do so only at and after Pentecost.

We simply need to be cautious when speaking about the reprobate concretely. While we know that there are reprobates, we do not know who they are (except in a few cases, most of whom have been mentioned in this thread--Cain, Esau, and Judas, for instance). It is not only unhelpful but simply wrongheaded to look at a passage like Jesus weeping over Jerusalem and think "Did He love the reprobate there?"

Better to see His compassion for the mixed multitude and to realize that, for many, though they then rejected Him, they would come soon to embrace him (though the Jews in general reject him until the time of the ingathering--Romans 11:25 ff). Given that many Jews will be gathered in, there is no small sense in which our Lord's compassion expressed here will have Jerusalem's deliverance in some sense as its fruition.

All this is to say, this beautiful text of our Lord weeping over Jerusalem, even as He did over us in our rebellion, should not be reduced to a speculative question about whether God has any sort of love or not for the reprobate. That kind of speculative approach sweeps aside the profound beauty, and tragedy, contained in the text. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and, even more so, has the power to, and does, to the uttermost, save His own. He always does all things well and glory to His name (Romans 11: 33-36).

Peace,
Alan

Here is the gist that causes most problems...I say this because I have experience this along with the assumption of many who "dislike" Calvinism. As many say "He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked" vs. WCF 5:1 God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

Now it has been a while since I read the article I posted earlier it appears that The Lord is speaking hypothetically in that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked IF they repent. In other words, He is speaking hypothetically and is not speaking of the death of the reprobate. I stand here for correction if need be.

 

[Matthew1344]

originally posted by earl40
originally posted by matthew1344
thank you guys very much. I like your last post rev bruce. Thank you very much for that. Also thank you for that link! I am about to look at it.

Also what do you say about eziekiel 18 (i think it's 18), when it says that the lord does not delight in the delight in the death of the wicked?

What do y'all say about this verse?
This in my opinion is an article the should be required reading for every person in leadership of any reformed church. Plus it answers your question.

Murray on the free offer: A review by matthew winzer
this was an excellent read, and i'd like to reiterate that those contemplating this question should set aside some time to give this article a thorough and careful read, as i did to great profit earlier this evening.

yes they should

 

[Matthew1344]

Did Adam and Eve immediately die? No.
Did Cain immediately die? no.
There is not one record in the writ that speaks of sin bringing immediate physical death.

And nothing that links this to common grace or the blood of Christ.

The reprobate are "vessels of wrath, having been fitted out for destruction" (Rom 9:22). Their time on earth is to be spent being hardened according to God’s desire (Rom 9:18), in order for God to display His wrath and to make His power known (Rom 9:22), and also to make the riches of His glory known to the elect (Rom 9:33).

The reprobate, during their lives, are being fattened for the kill.
They are heaping up damnation upon themselves.

The fact that they do not immediately go to hell after they are conceived is certainly not grace by any stretch.
By living their lives, they increase their condemnation, which is exactly what they deserve.

Look at Judas, Christ said:
"Truly the Son of Man goes as it as been written concerning Him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It were GOOD for him if that man had NEVER BEEN BORN" (Mar 14:21)!

Letting Judas live had nothing to do with the death of Christ. He says it himself...Grace to Judas would have been GOOD if he were NEVER BORN.....

I saw this on a thread like this one a while back... what do you have to say about this verse Alan.
I have loved your feedback thus far and I am very curious what someone with your stance would say to this comment?
Thanks so much!

And if anyone else wants to respond to this post feel free

 

[py3ak]

the prayer for forgiveness from the cross is VERY different in this regard. I don't believe this prayer is a reflection of God's general love for his enemies (though that is a reality). This is rather an effectual prayer for his own who were present at his crucifixion, and it should be recognized as such simply because there is an expression of the divine will present, rather than a simple statement of facts (albeit grievous ones) that is present in the Luke 19 passage referred to in the OP.

Can you clarify on the expression Kaleb?

Not a problem Stephen!

This is a great discussion guys, you guys are blessing me very much.

John Owen takes up a far more solid position against Corvinus in "A Display of Arminianism," chapters 2&3.

What book?

It's in volume 10 of the Works, though I believe "A Display of Arminianism" has also been reprinted separately.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Matt:

Unsurprisingly, I agree with the Bible verse since it is the Word of the Lord. It is true for every reprobate: it would be better for such not to have been born given his impenitent sin and destiny.

This does not mean that God in no sense loves him, on the other hand. These are no more to be pitted against each other than are the unity and diversity of God, the two natures in the one person of Christ, and the sovereignty of God and responsibility of man. I believe that we must go with revelation rather than lop some part of it off in favor of our supposed reason.

Does God love the elect even in their sin and rebellion before coming to Him? If one says unqualifiedly "yes," then there's no transition in the life of the Christian from wrath to grace, but the Bible makes it clear that there is. Proper systematics never chops one part of God's Word off in favor of another but testifies properly to the whole counsel of God. Always and everywhere.

This is mature theological understanding. It must hold its ground, lovingly and patiently, and not yield to rationalizing schemes like Arminianism or hyper-Calvinism.

Peace,
Alan