Unashamed of Grace

Saturday, August 25, 2007

God's Love for the Non-Elect?

by Rose

In reading another blog, I came across a discussion about God's love as it relates to election. Several Calvinists were involved in the discussion. The question being discussed is basically like this:

Does God love the non-elect at all ... and if so, does he love the non-elect less or differently than the elect?

I have so enjoyed reading some of the thoughts of Daniel - who is one of these involved in the discussion - who is not so willing to stipulate to this idea of God showing partiality. I just wanted to post his thought here as I have been reflecting upon it:

Daniel says:
I marvel that if I am commanded to love my neighbor regardless of whether that neighbor is elect - and more, if the whole law of God can be summed up in that command - I say I marvel that I am tragically commanded to do a thing that God himself does not do, that is, to love everyone as myself. I am having a lot of trouble seeing God as saying to men to "Do as I say, and not as I do..."

41 Comments:

Hi Rose!

http://mdpmusings.blogspot.com/2007/08/i-found-this-comment-on-another-blog.html

By mark pierson, at Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:10:00 AM
I think at least these days, the majority Calvinist view is that God loves the non-elect.

Though you do see an insistence among older commentators that the rich young ruler must have been among the elect.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:29:00 AM
Many Calvinists simply don't know how to express their theology, or live according to it. This should not speak against Calvinism as much as it should speak against those who don't know when they shouldn't be talking.

As to an answer for your question; the "non-elect" traditionally refers to those who are also called the reprobate. Classic examples abound: Ishmael, Pharaoh, those peoples the Israelites slaughter while conquoring Canaan, etc. It is presumed (because only God knows absolutely) that these individuals, while perhaps having the opportunity to be saved, are (pre)destined for destruction. In other words, even if given the chance for salvation they will not take it. So, as a category of people, the non-elect are those whom God knows (and has determined) will not be saved. As a category of people, then, I think we can properly say that God does not effectively love them, though He may affectively love them.

On an individual basis, however, it is certainly possible for God to love a non-elect; Saul comes immediately to mind in this regard. Saul is someone who is said to have God's Spirit at one point and, towards the end of his life, the Spirit leaves him to his own destruction. Can it be said that God only hated Saul? I don't think so, but it is equally obvious that God did not love him to the same extent that He loved David. And that, I think, is part of the key to understanding Calvinism on this point. It can be said that God affectively loves even many (certainly some) of the non-elect; but this love is not effective for their salvation because that is not God's intent for them.

Personally, I would not make a distinction of type as far as God's love for elect and non-elect individuals is concerned, rather I think it is a matter of degree (again, "effective" and "affective"). It is not so different with humans, us being created in God's image and all.

By jared, at Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:12:00 AM
Mark's link

By Anonymous, at Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:44:00 PM
There's nothing funnier than watching Calamites explain the love of God. They can slice the divine agape thinner than a deli ham. Who but a Calamite can turn the simple truth of John 3:16 into rubric of sovereign, secret election?

While God may love His own more than He loves the lost (Jo. 13:1), He certainly does not love the lost any less redemptively than He loves His own (Mt. 10:21; Jo. 3:16).

Again, that God may manifest His love in a greater sense toward the saved than He does toward the unsaved is not surprising. The fact is He may even love one believer to a greater degree than He does another (Jo. 20:2; 21:7).

But leave it up to Cals to turn the love of God into a theological charade, into a perfect illustration of "sovereign grace" madness. Only a deep-seated confusion could impel men to scale down God's redemptive love to a manageable theology, to a select few.

With the Institutes in one hand and the wand of Merlin in the other, the Calamites transform God's redemptive love for the world into Geneva's restricted love for the elect.

It's a good act.

But, as we know, it's an illusion.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, August 25, 2007 5:45:00 PM
tjp,
As always your love shines brightly for all to see.

By jazzycat, at Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:26:00 PM
Jared,

As a Calvinist, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. One place of disagreement lies, however, in your fundamental omission (as far as Calvinists are concerned) to state that the non elect are damned because of their own sin. I know that we could discuss this for a wee while, but this is where the Scripture puts the responsibility and where Calvinists likewise follow. John 3:19 is the fundamental verse here, alonmg with John 5:40 etc.,

By Colin Maxwell, at Sunday, August 26, 2007 1:50:00 AM
"tjp,
As always your love shines brightly for all to see."

Should we be called to love anyone more than God loves the reprobates He destines to eternal conscious punishment in Hell with the Devil and his minions?

By Jon Lee, at Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:16:00 AM
Should we be called to love anyone more than God loves the reprobates He destines to eternal conscious punishment in Hell with the Devil and his minions?

Are we guided by the word of God i.e. the Scriptures or the decree of God? Herein lies your answer.

By Colin Maxwell, at Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:52:00 AM
goodnightsafehome,

Yes, I took it for granted. Because the non-elect will not have faith, as Abraham had faith, they will not be saved though they may even be in the covenant at some point.

tip,

Where have I sliced and diced the love of God? I said that God's love is not different in type, the love that I have as a believer is the same love that a non-believer has if/when he has it. The difference is that God's love for me is both effective and affective, though it doesn't always seem affective. In my case it is like the love of a father for his son. However, this is not how God loves the non-believer, as you have also pointed out.

There's a difference between saying that God loves the world and saying that God loves every single individual in the world. There's also a difference between saying that God loves the world and every single individual in the world to the same extent. Scripture makes it very clear that while God loves the world there are individuals in world whom He does not love. It is also clear that there are individuals who were once loved and now are not (some of the kings of Israel after the kingdom split, Judas and Hebrews 6 come to mind). Again, where do I say otherwise?

By jared, at Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:15:00 AM
TJP, being the student of church history that you are, could you please tell me what you know of the Calvinists and their part in The Great Awakenings? The names George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd come to mind here.

What of the great spiritual revival in England in the 1850's? Among those used of God there the name Spurgeon comes to mind.

What are your thoughts on all of these "calamites", kind sir?

By mark pierson, at Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:17:00 AM
There are many here who are aware of the fact that Whitefield (a Calvinist) and Wesley (not) had many a disagreement on Calvinism, yet they ministered side by side and were used of God side by side. This "calamite" thing can only happen in an atmosphere where people are unaware of these things; an atmosphere where people don't wish to look into or consider such things. Let's read our church history books, people! Pretty soon persecution against Christians could break out here in the West. What are you gonna do if the person suffering for his faith in the cell next to you is on the other side of this debate?!

By mark pierson, at Sunday, August 26, 2007 3:25:00 PM
Mark, I would carry on the debate by passing notes through the cell bars. :)

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, August 27, 2007 12:47:00 AM
Matthew: Mark just mentioned imprisonment. He said nothing about torture :-)

By Colin Maxwell, at Monday, August 27, 2007 3:01:00 AM
Being in a cell next to Matthew!!! Now that is cruel and unusual punishment. :-)

By jazzycat, at Monday, August 27, 2007 6:35:00 AM
That is rotten, Wayne.

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, August 27, 2007 8:32:00 AM
I can just picture that cat in an orange jumpsuit.

By Matthew Celestine, at Monday, August 27, 2007 8:33:00 AM
Duh!
I am so sorry. I posted this and then forgot to interact on the matters or even to thank people for commenting. My humble apologies to all. My mind is not quite with it these last few days. I have forgotten several other things and made some really big mistakes at work. I need a brain adjustment or something.

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:31:00 AM
Mark,
Thanks for the greeting.

DF,
Right. It is not love to the same degree, though. Not the love where a person lays down his life for them, right?

Hello Jared,
You are Earl's son-in-law, I think? Do I have that right? So you would be one that would view John 3:16 as saying that God loved the world of the elect then? That verse spells it out that God loved the world "SO" - in such a way - that he gave. Then again, if world doesn't mean all the people in the wolrd then you don't have a problem with your approach. Is that how you see it?

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:16:00 AM
TJP,
Thanks for your thoughts. :~) I don't like slice and dice either. I do appreciate the fact that Daniel, who is a Cal, said that he doesn't accpet that thinking.
hooray!

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:53:00 AM
Goodnight:
Are we guided by the word of God i.e. the Scriptures or the decree of God? Herein lies your answer.

Herein lies the answer to all of this - because no one knows anything about these secret Calvinist decrees.

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:10:00 AM
Who are you, Jon? Are you the same Jon we know and love?

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:11:00 AM
Hi Jazzycat,
God loves you.

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:11:00 AM
Rose! You shock me! Surely you're not saying that there is no decree?

By Colin Maxwell, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:55:00 AM
Colin Maxwell,
these secret Calvinist decrees are suspect.

:~)

Where does it tell about these secretly decreed things in the Bible?

By Rose~, at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:18:00 PM
Good morning, Rose.
Where does it tell about these secretly decreed things in the Bible?

Let us establish, first of all, that God does decree things. The word itself appears several times, in relation to God, in the Bible: Psalm 2:7/148:6/Proverbs 8:29 etc., Another synonym for decree is counsel such as we find in Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure The word translated counsel is also translated by another synonym purpose - all these carry the same idea i.e. that God does not act "on the hoof" (are you familiar with that phrase? It sounds like a cowboy type expression) i.e. He does not need to react and adjust to various circumstances as He goes along. Whatever He does, He was always going to do, because He is not a man that He should repent (Numbers 23:19) i.e. turn back and change His mind. (I know the Scripture portrays Him as sometimes repenting, but this is as it appears to us. It is the language of condescension, just as it is when it says that God remembered Noah - Had God really forgotten about him? Obviously not.)

What God decrees to happen, He invariably brings to pass. My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Isaiah 46:10) The decree will not pass (Psalm 148:6) i.e. not pass away without being fulfilled, as in Matthew 24:35. Again: Hath He not said and shall He not do it? (Numbers 23:19) I resist the temptation to multiply verses here.

Are these decrees secret? To us, yes. You and I do not know what a day may bring forth (Proverbs 27:1) but God does. We do not know the day or the hour of the Lord's return, but our Heavenly Father does (Matthew 25:13) Do you and I know whether that drunken bum across the street is elected unto salvation? No…but our Heavenly Father knows. It is not for us to know everything. We certainly couldn't handle it, so it remains a secret only unto the Lord until He brings it to pass. In a very practical sense (hence my question above): The secret things belong unto the Lord, but the things that are revealed unto us and to our children (Deuteronomy 29:29) IOW, we are to concentrate our thoughts and be guided by what God has told us, rather than trying to pry into the things that are still hidden from us. I do not know what a day may bring forth, but the Bible exhorts me to work diligently to ensure that my family has enough food etc., (If I don't, I am worse than an infidel.) I seek to live soberly and expectantly of the Lord's return as if it could happen today. I give that drunkard a gospel tract whether he is ultimately elect or not. It is the Bible (which has been revealed) that is the light to my path and the lamp to my feet. The decree is there in reality, but I since I cannot see its details, then I happily run with what is revealed, knowing that they will dovetail together in God's perfect plan.

Rose! Say "Amen" with me! :-)

By Colin Maxwell, at Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:09:00 AM
Colin Maxwell,
IOW, we are to concentrate our thoughts and be guided by what God has told us, rather than trying to pry into the things that are still hidden from us.

You're talking my language now. Amen, brother Maxwell, amen!

(Too bad you couldn't have told that to John Calvin!) hehehe

By Rose~, at Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:01:00 AM
Morning again, Rose.

What has John Calvin said otherwise than this? As far as I know, he never pointed men to the decree as opposed to the word of God. In his comments on Lamentations 2:17 he wisely wrote that we should learn to bridle all curiosity when we speak of God's secret judgements, and instantly to direct our minds to the word itself."

You said earlier that these Calvinistic secret decrees were unknown to any and then that they were suspect Having now established the existence of the secret decree from Scripture, it is not unreasonable for me to query whether you accept the evidence that I produce above? If not, wherein have I gone wrong?

By Colin Maxwell, at Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:18:00 AM
rose,

You say:

You are Earl's son-in-law, I think? Do I have that right? So you would be one that would view John 3:16 as saying that God loved the world of the elect then? That verse spells it out that God loved the world "SO" - in such a way - that he gave. Then again, if world doesn't mean all the people in the wolrd then you don't have a problem with your approach. Is that how you see it?

First off, yes; I am Earl's son-in-law, you do have that right (and I hope that fact doesn't reflect poorly on him). My wife and I recently celebrated our 1 year anniversary (back in April, actually) and are excitedly awaiting the arrival of our first child (he's due near the end of November). As to "world" in John 3:16, I actually understand the Greek to mean not just people, but all of creation as well. Jesus came not only to redeem humanity, but to redeem creation itself as well. This is the only meaning that makes sense from a covenantal standpoint as Abraham was promised both a family and land.

I have highlted (briefly) above that the category of people we call "non-elect" (which us Calvinists generally understand to mean "reprobate"), even though they exist and are included in the world as a whole, are not recipients of God's love to any salvific depth. The non-elect are God's enemies (as we once were) who have not been chosen for redemption and, as such, are not objects of love but of wrath. Temporary provision and/or exception is made for those non-elect who find themselves, at some point or another, participating in the visible covenant family; ultimately, however, their final destination will not change.

I would say that the non-elect are recipients of God's love to the extent that they are allowed to exist, experience His creation and even as they enjoy the benefits of bearing His image. An analogy here can be helpful I think. I can say "I love pizza" and, in general, that is indisputably true. There are types of pizza that I do not particularly care for, but that doesn't change the fact that I love pizza; nor does it make my statement "I love pizza" untrue or dubious. Of course I understand that God's love for the world (humanity and creation) can't be equated with my love for pizza, but I think the analogical principle works and has biblical warrant.

By Unknown, at Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:32:00 AM
Mark,
Sorry, I'm not a "student" of church history. I just dabble in it.

I hate to disappoint you, big guy; but if I recall correctly, Edwards did not believe revivals came at the behest of men but were sovereign, supernatural visitations of God. Nor did he believe they had anything to do with one's theology per se. He didn't believe men could take credit for them on any grounds: doctrinal, spiritual, moral. God sent them, and that was that.

Thus, in the view of Edwards Calvinism had no more to do with revival than Arminianism. Perhaps that's why we see God using the ministries of both Calvinists and Arminians during the great awakenings and other world-wide movements of the Spirit.

Edwards was certainly correct: If God wants to revive his people, He'll do it, with our without the "doctrines of grace" or free will. That He used those who believed in the five-point nonsense is no more an argument for Calvinism than His using Wesley or Finney is an argument for Arminianism.

I do find Calamites hypocritical on this issue, though. They damn Finney for his antics and yet Whitefield was almost as bad. Both tried to "gin up" revivals, and both introduced "new measures." Yet Whitefield, being the darling of the Cals, received little criticism.

Have a good one.

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:04:00 PM
"Edwards did not believe revivals came at the behest of men but were sovereign, supernatural visitations of God. Nor did he believe they had anything to do with one's theology per se. He didn't believe men could take credit for them on any grounds: doctrinal, spiritual, moral. God sent them, and that was that."

God owns the work of men who honor His truths, as Edwards, Whitfield and brainerd did.

I live in what is called "the burned over district", Rochester, New York. Why is it called that? Because of Finney and his sermons here in the 1830's. At first his revivals brought about quite a stir: bars and saloons and whore-houses closed down and remained so for years. However, something else happened - over time people started to fall back into sin. IOW, discipleship really never took place at his "revivals". After time pastors in the area no longer wanted Finney and his legalism and revisit Rochester.

You see, Finney never believed in penal substitution. Consequently God never owned his (Finney's) work here. The pastors in this area concluded that it would be best if Finney stayed out of here and actually resisted his desire to revisit here in the latter half of the 1830's.

BTW, it IS God Who sends revivals, not man generating them. I have no problem holding that opinion. I don't see your point of contention here.

By mark pierson, at Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:37:00 AM
tjp, no doubt you have a great zeal for the souls of men. I believe a look at the biography's of these men, that I have mentioned, would bare out that their hunger to see souls saved was at least equal to yours. Your hatred of Calvinism is irrational and ill-informed. I don't see any evidence in your writings that you have ever interacted with Calvinism. Oh sure you've talked at it, but never with it.

I do appreciate your stand on preaching repentance though.

By mark pierson, at Thursday, August 30, 2007 7:52:00 AM
I was just looking at the rules for this blog and found "No name calling or backhanded insulting". Hmmm. How did "calamite" get past this rule? I guess anything goes as long as it is directed at Calvinism. Consistency, ya gotta love it!

By mark pierson, at Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:00:00 AM
Thanks, Mark. That didd slip by, didn't it? I hope you are having a great week!

TJP,
Don't use the name "Calamite" OK? You must obey the rules.

Carry on and don't let the ....

hehehe :~)

By Rose~, at Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:01:00 AM
Thanks, Rose. You are fair and balanced. You report, we decide.

hehehe

By mark pierson, at Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:13:00 AM
Colin Maxwell,
I am sorry. I forgot to respond to your question.

You said earlier that these Calvinistic secret decrees were unknown to any and then that they were suspect. Having now established the existence of the secret decree from Scripture, it is not unreasonable for me to query whether you accept the evidence that I produce above? If not, wherein have I gone wrong?

OK, you may have established the existence of decrees and even that we don't know all about them, but not the secret decree of the Calvinist framework wherin it teaches that God establishes that He will save set number of men and decrees to die for them only, draw them only, regenerate them only etc. This is one of the decrees that you have *not* establishedt.

So, it is reasonable for you to query, but me (in my reasonableness) will have to still say that I find that decree, at least, to be suspect.

:~)

Fun as always.

By Rose~, at Friday, August 31, 2007 6:03:00 AM
rose,

Who's been teaching you Calvinism? This "secret decree" you keep talking about is nothing less than what Jesus speaks clearly of in John 10. The Father has given sheep to the Son and those sheep will not be lost because the Son is a good Shepherd. The only thing secret about this decree is that we don't know who the sheep are (and that's not really much of a secret or a surprise). The omniscience of God already necessitates that he knows the number of those who will be saved and, thus, who will be regenerated, etc.; we don't. No secrets or surprises there either.

So I ask you: (1) does God already know who will be saved? (2) If so, then can it not be said that God has decreed (or predestined) their salvation? (3) Can it not further be said that we don't know the specifics of who will be saved? (4) If so, then is not this decree/predestining secret, at least relative to us?

By jared, at Friday, August 31, 2007 7:12:00 AM
OK, you may have established the existence of decrees and even that we don't know all about them, but not the secret decree of the Calvinist framework wherin it teaches that God establishes that He will save set number of men and decrees to die for them only, draw them only, regenerate them only etc. This is one of the decrees that you have *not* establishedt.

*****************

Fair enough, Rose. Thus far, we have established that God has decreed to do certain things and whatsoever He decrees to do, He actually and invariably does and that we cannot know in a particular way what those decrees will be until they come to pass. That drunkard in the street may actually turn out to be a Christian pastor in ten years time, because it was decreed that that tract I (or anyone) gave him was the means to bring him to Christ. Let's build Biblically upon this sold foundation.

1) Whatever God does, He decreed to do so. He always knew what He was going to do and decreed to do it. Therefore when He makes up that body of redeemed souls which He calls His church - a total that no man can number, but each one known and numbered by God - then He evidently decreed that that exact number would be there. If He decreed (say) that the rich man in hell would be heaven, then He signally failed and thus His claim to be the Almighty is somewhat untrue. Basically, what eventually will prove to be will also prove to have decreed. If the decree is the root of the action, then the action or the outcome is the fruit of the decree. I don't think you would go as far as to say that there will be souls in Heaven who were not decreed to be there?

2) Take it further. Having decreed that those people who come to make up His church alone will eventually make it to Heaven, God set in motion the means whereby this can take place. We know that He will in no wise clear the guilty and so He must set about clearing their guilt. Hence the Cross. This leads us to ask the great question: "Will Christ die and make an actual atonement for those whose salvation was not decreed?" If so, to what end? God decreed to leave them in their sins, has not and will not draw them effectuallyto Himself and this leaves us asking, then "To what purpose would Christ make an atonement for their sins?" We could take this further and enquire as to the great matter that if Christ made an atonement for their sins, then on what basis can they ever be in hell suffering for those same sins? That would make God an unjust judge. However, from the angle that we are pursuing here, if Christ died to actually save the non elect, then He was going against the decree of God that evidently decided to leave them to perish in their chosen sins.

3) When Calvinists speak about God drawing and regenerating sinners, they are generally referring to an effectual calling or drawing. Again, whatever comes to pass in these matters has been planned along by God (or decreed) and the same question applies again: Why would the Spirit of God (the Agent in the calling) seek to effectually draw or regenerate any whom the decree excluded from salvation? This would involve yet another contradiction in the Godhead on this great matter.

The logic of what I declare here all flows from this doctrine of the decree of God. Effectively, if you can overthrow the idea that what God does, He always decreed to do then you overthrow the Calvinist system. However, you do much more. You overthrow those verses of Scripture which I affirmed (and you seemed to agree with) in my last posting. You end up with God either not knowing what He is going to do next, or declaring one thing only to change His mind and so something else. I'd rather run with the teaching that whatever God brings to pass, He has decreed to do so and that nothing can stand in its way as God successfully pursues His sovereign will through the changing scenes of history. Of course, there is much more to be said than this. Man is a totally responsible creature etc., and is guided entirely by what is written in the word. In the matter of salvation, we are to urge men to seek the Lord etc., and warn them of the dire consequences of failure to do so, but our subject here concerns the decree of God and this is where Calvin and Calvinists come from on the matter. If this is flawed, then (again) please point out where and how it knocks out what we both seem to agree is true in my first posting.

Thanks for reading these posts and keeping in touch.

By Colin Maxwell, at Friday, August 31, 2007 10:43:00 AM
Rose,

Sure thing. I'll refrain from using the word "Calamite" when I post here.

But, tell me, does that also mean there'll be a moritorium on the words "Finneyism" or "Finneyesque"?

I realize Cals are thin-skinned and would rather cry in their wife's lap than debate issues, but must we really abaondon "free willy," "Calamite," and "Finneysim" to satisfy a few Genevan cry babies?

Have a good one.

And carry on in free grace.

Have a good one.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 1:19:00 PM
I realize Cals are thin-skinned and would rather cry in their wife's lap than debate issues...

TJP:- I have currently no less than three comments on your blog to which you have still to reply. We're up for debate alright. However, it is Christian rather than sissy to expect some kind of reverence when we are discussing Scripture. We are not sitting in some smoke filled bar room where people feel the need to indulge in macho talk and insult any who dare disagree with them.

Oops, Rose. I think you're the wristslapper round here :-)

By Colin Maxwell, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:30:00 PM
"Genevan cry babies?"

Hmmm. perhaps we should look at the rules for this blog again. What does 1 Cor.13 have to say about this?

By mark pierson, at Saturday, September 01, 2007 4:14:00 PM