God's Love (A Question for Calvinists)

Well, I'm a calvinist and I believe God loves all people, and I would base that on Matt 5:44ff (I think that's the right reference--I'm in a hurry and I'm not taking the time to look it up to make sure).

 

Matt. 5.44 is the right reference, but these words are to us and not to God.

Bro. Dallas

 

Ahh...but the reason we are to love our enemies is in order to be like (or sons of) our Father in heaven. Our benevolence toward our enemies is a copy of the benevolence God has toward both the just and the unjust.

BTW, I don't think this sort of love--the sort of love by which God provides earthly benefits to everyone--is the same thing as God's redemptiive love. But I do think it is rightly called love, because I think this passage in Matthew implies that it is a type of love.

 

Not that I think it matters nor that it is necessary for your faith, but I can agree with your response.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

One question... If God loves everybody as some say according to John 3:16... The whole Adamic world then would God not save everybody?... And the purpose for hell is only for the Devil and his angels?... But there is this problem... Jesus told some they were of their father the devil and his works they would do?... There is another problem also at the crucifiction... As one thief went to paradise... Jesus even told him he was going there... Didn't tell the other fella a thing... So right there in those two illustrations in the NT proves God does not love everybody!... Brother Glen

 

I agree with that too brother Glen, now where are those Arminians at...they have always accused Calvinists of dancing around scripture???

In truth God does love his creation; this is why the Bible says that Christ is 'the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world' he has sent forth his Son because he did love the world, his creation, and because of the righteousness of God that is in Christ the creation of God will be raised higher than the original creation, it will be above sin, perfected in his righteousness. Yes God does love his creation.

But in truth, to say that God love's all men, you are correct in saying no, for if this were the case, it could not be said that 'if they believe not' they are 'condemned already' nor could it be said that his wrath abideth on them, if he loved them, then he could not permit his wrath to 'abide' on them, this is as saying they become the abode of his wrath. Further, Rev. 14.10 would have to be cut out of the Bible:

10  The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

To feel a love for those who already have died and are condemned, would require that God repent of that condemnation.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

It really never ceases to amaze me how uncalvinistic many of the Calvinists on this board are.

You should read Calvin's works on love. There is some great stuff there. Also, read Calvin's commentaries on John 3:16. It's been a while sence I've looked at it but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't try to deny God's love for everyone of his creatures as many Calvinists have done on this board.

If you would like to know the historical Calvinistic view of God's love I would also recommend a book called, "The Love of God" by John MacArthur. He answers this question from a Calvinistic viewpoint in a much more consistant way than we see here.

I'm not trying to defend Calvinism but my goodness I think that dening God's love for his creation is going way too far, even for a Calvinist.

 

God loves His creation so much that He had done what is necessary to carry out His purpose, plan, and will for His creation, and bring all of His blood-bought children home to Him.

And I love you, Bill, as hard as that is sometimes to do.

 

I think what this demonstrates is the truth of what I have been saying for days (and no one seems to be listening). We are not Calvinists because of Calvin. It is unfortunate that his name got attached to it. "Calvinism" is not as much about what John Calvin taught as it is about what people believe about what Scripture teaches. I would differ from many of these comments on the love of God. I think God loves elect and non-elect alike. But I don't believe that because of what Calvin wrote.

Which is why I have said that historical discussions about Calvin have no place here. We don't really care. This is about theology that happens to adopt the name of two men.

 

I think what this demonstrates is the truth of what I have been saying for days (and no one seems to be listening). We are not Calvinists because of Calvin. It is unfortunate that his name got attached to it. "Calvinism" is not as much about what John Calvin taught as it is about what people believe about what Scripture teaches. I would differ from many of these comments on the love of God. I think God loves elect and non-elect alike. But I don't believe that because of what Calvin wrote.

Which is why I have said that historical discussions about Calvin have no place here. We don't really care. This is about theology that happens to adopt the name of two men. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, the same could be said about those who hold to Arminianism. We too claim we believe what the scripture teaches. The issue is that we disagree as to what the scripture says. Different systems of thought have answered this issues different ways and each of them have developed labels over the years. To be unaware of the historical discussion of these issues only weakens your ability to objectively view the scripture in the correct context.

Of course you think your context is correct because its the only one you have any grasp of. You haven't taken the time to look at this issue from those who have formulated opposing systems because you feel these types of discussions "don't belong here." I could not disagree with you more strongly.

Those ignorant of the past are those who are most likely to repeat its mistakes. I believe you are doing that by not understanding why James Arminius and many others led a very successful and long impacting revolt against Calvinistic doctrine concerning his views of soterilogy. Haven't you ever wondered what convinced all those thousands of people to renounce Calvinism during those days. Today we have the trend of Calvinism comming back because people don't know why they are Arminians in the first place, but don't you think that Arminius and his followers had to have some pretty convincing arguments to convince Calvinists to convert like they did in those days? Believe me, it aint easy to convert a Calvinists but Arminus was very successful. You could say he was just as successful as Martin Luther was at reforming the church. Why? You wouldn't know Larry because you don't know his arguments. I've only scratch the surface of what Arminus taught on these issues and I admit I'm not near as good at this as he was.

 

Which I have said many times.

Which is why the label "Biblicist" is useless.

I don't think most here are unaware of the historical discussion. But your point fails on its face: Being unaware of historical discussions leads to more objectivity because of the absence of baggage, not less objectivity. (A simple matter of argumentation--a little side issue from me).

First, you assume that I haven't taken time to look becuase I find your position totally unconvincing. The truth is that I reject your position because I have taken time to look. The Scripture teach differently.

Second, what are you disagreeing about?? My point was simple: To say that Calvinists don't know what Calvin taught is to raise a non-issue. I don't care what Calvin taught. The issue is what Scripture teaches. The Calvinism and arminianism has been attached to beliefs about what Scripture teaches. Are you disagreeing that what matters is what Scripture teaches?? That is what I said.

I know Scripture. Perhaps you should be wondering why the majority of evangelical Christianity for centuries has rejected your position. It is not easy to convert a calvinist because of Scripture. Sometimes you can convince one who does not know Scripture; but rarely if ever can you convince one who knows Scripture. I am not interested in what Arminius taught. I am interested in what Christ and the apostles taught. If that makes me unlearned, then so be it. There was not a long and successful revolt against Calvinism. There were differing belief systems. I think you need a bit more objective look at church history and Scripture.

 

To all,

There is a great book on this subject.

D.A.Carson The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000)

The book shows, rather well, that God's love encompases many aspects. You can get it at Amazon.com

I cannot go into great detail here. However, I do suggest the book to all!

Blessings,

Archangel