[This post is from Jerry Wall's facebook page. He addresses the nature of God's love in Calvinism - why some Calvinists claim that God loves everyone, while others do not. Good stuff.]
Several days ago, we had a rather energetic discussion on this page in response to classic Calvinist theologian Arthur Pink’s forthright claim that God does not love everyone. Most Calvinists are not so forthright, I observed. By way of seeking further clarity, let me lay bare the logic of Pink’s view and why it is perfectly understandable why he made that claim. Consider the following argument.
1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Truly to love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
3. The well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
4. God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
5. Therefore, all will be saved.
Now I think it is clear that the conclusion of this argument follows from the premises. The argument is not formally valid in stating every premise, but the essential premises are there. (If anyone wants to see the formally valid version, I have spelled it out in my essay “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian Should EVER Be a Compatibilist” that was published last summer in Philosophia Christi). Consequently, anyone who denies universalism and rejects the conclusion, must deny one or more of the premises. So it is not so surprising in light of this argument why Pink said what he did. He simply denied premise one.
Now when I said most Calvinists are not so forthright, I meant that they usually affirm premise one. So they must deny one of the others. One popular strategy is to deny, or fudge, on premise two. One of my favorite examples here is DA Carson, who says he is often asked by young Calvinist pastors whether he tells the unconverted that God loves them. His answer: “OF COURSE I tell the unconverted that God loves them.” Now how does he do this since for all he knows the unconverted he is speaking to are not elect? Well, he distinguishes between the love God gives to all persons and his “selecting” love which is only for the elect. He loves all in the sense that he gives them temporal blessings (“the rain falls on the just and the unjust”), and invites them to believe the gospel (“whosoever will may come”) even if they are not elect and CANNOT come. So, in short, all the unconverted are loved at least in the sense that rain falls on their gardens, so Carson can say, OF COURSE I tell the unconverted God loves them. Now the question is how honest this really is. Is it truly loving to someone to water their garden for 75 or so years before dispatching them to eternal misery for choices they were determined to make? If Carson were clear what he means when he assures the unconverted that God loves ALL of them, would anyone buy it? So in short, Calvinists like Carson affirm premise 1, but subtly deny premise 2. And I would argue that anyone who denies 2 will end up denying 1 also.
The other move Calvinists can make is to deny premise 4. They can admit that SO FAR AS THE NATURE OF FREEDOM IS CONCERNED God could save all persons, since freedom and determinism are compatible on their view. But perhaps God can’t save everyone for other reasons. Like what? Well, a classic answer given by Calvin, Aquinas, and Piper is that God would not be fully glorified if some were not damned. So, ironically, God needs evil and sin fully to glorify himself, fully to be God. God is more glorified in determining some people “freely” to sin and blaspheme, and then punishing them forever, than he would be by determining them “freely” to worship and obey him. This doesn’t sound so good when you think about it, and more importantly does not sound like the God of love who seeks out the 100th lost sheep and rejoices when a sinner repents. So perhaps it makes sense why Pink and others just deny premise 1 rather than resort to denying 2 or 4.
I deny 4, though not with a Calvinist argument.
Well, it’s either Augustine/Calvin are correct about predestination, or it’s universalism. The weakest logical argument is that it’s a choice we make. Between the two, universalism and predestination, Predestination seems to be more in line with scripture.
Our human desire for love blinds our ability to reason. Reading Ezekiel this week the Lord said to smite women and children. Since that flies in the face of Universalism I give Calvin/Augustine the upperhand.
Hi Scot,
I agree that predestination is a better option if it’s an either/or choice between predestination and universalism. But there’s a better third option. Election is conditional and centered in Christ. Those who are are in relationship with Christ have eternal life. If God desires us to make a choice that by grace he enables us to make (as Arminians hold), that’s his prerogative.
The OT smiting texts are part of God’s word, but the NT gives us a more complete picture of God – Jesus Christ, revealed in the flesh. Jesus says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”
Hey Kevin!
I appreciate your comments, both past and present. It looks to me that you answer with the Calvin idea. To quote: “IF God desires us to make a choice he enables us to make…” That’s predestination, right from Jump Street. If God does not desires us to make a choice, then he won’t enable us to make that choice, and that explains why we have non-believers to this day. That is why Calvin believes that faith is a gift from God and not something humanly manufactured. Wesley, with “prevenient grace” just didn’t want to admit Calvin was right so came up with another catch-phrase, is my opinion.
If one wants to believe that God is ONLY about love, then Arminian-ism works and then only when LOVE is narrowly defined. However, God isn’t JUST about love and certainly not the narrow view that humans fathom. How do I know this? The Bible tells me so.
Hi Scot, Arminians believe God enables us to make choices and that he does this for everyone (prevenient grace). God does not make our choices for us (irresistible grace / Calvinism). God’s primary attribute is love, but it’s not his only attribute.
and 1 can be attacked with Scripture: Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.
“Is it truly loving to someone to water their garden for 75 or so years before dispatching them to eternal misery for choices they were determined to make?”
Ouch. That is the type of question my dad asked me while I was a Calvinist. He asked me to define “love” according to John 3:16.
Your Dad sounds like a wise man. Thanks for commenting BTW, it’s nice to hear from you again. :)
Will a Calvinist please answer this question for me..are children predestined before birth for Heaven or Hell and if they are what happens if they die at a young age? Where do they go? When does God hold them accountable for having predestined them? You think God really wanted to get such a mess going?
Hi Earl, thanks for the question. I’m not a Calvinist (obviously), but here’s how one might answer the question. :)
[Kevin puts Calvinist hat on] Everyone is predestined, including children. Whether or not a child goes to heaven is up to God, he can elect a child or reprobate him as he sees fit. The world is not a “mess”. The world is exactly the way God wants it, he has decreed it to unfold this way for his glory. If you think otherwise, it’s because of your rebellion and man-centered thinking. [Kevin takes Calvinist hat off]
Thanks Kevin, but I asked where the kid would go if he dies and was not born “elected.” I understand most of Reformed or Calvinist theology. I just want to get an answer from a Calvinist as to where the kid will go. Does election begin at birth then he should go to hell,but I’ll bet you won’t get that answer from a true Calvinist, especially if they have children. That’s why philosophers have worked on logic all these years. One has to live with the logic of his beliefs. Or does election to go to hell not start until the kid is old enough to be able to understand..yeah I know unelected cannot respond to the Spirit no matter what. I find most Calvinists do not follow the logic of their beliefs.
Again Kevin.. the mess is this Calvinist vs. anyone who wants an answer or disagrees with them. Did Jesus tell the rich young man not to worry to sell everything cause he may not have been elected anyway?
You’re preaching to the choir Earl. :) Consistent Calvinists hold that God’s decrees were made before the foundation of the world. So God’s choice to send a “reprobate child” would have taken place before the child was ever born. I will grant you though that most Calvinists don’t spend a lot of time defending that sort of thing.
not children, humans……. even Jeremiah tells us this. This thing the Lord set in motion has a final outcome already known, and the Lord wins. This isn’t some system whose outcome is determined by what we may or may not do. That’s how gloriously wonderful He is!
I think there’s a mistake in your question. You seem to believe that God could will a child to be reprobate, but then that child inconveniently die before he was old enough to be able to sin. This is an impossibility. The child cannot die until God wills it and since God does not send unaccountable children to hell then the scenario you pose is impossible.
EXCEPT…… the world is not the way God wanted it. Genesis tells us that, then there’s that Noah thing.
I agree Scot, the world is not the way God wants it. Calvinists, however, believe that the word is the way it is by God’s design. The WCF says “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass”
Can’t argue with that!
Saw this at the SEA site. Good stuff.
Reblogged this on Arminian Today and commented:
Good post that was also found at the Society of Evangelical Arminians site. Thanks Kevin for posting this.
Thanks for sharing it Roy.
Does God love those in Heaven in exactly the same way that he loves those on whom he is pouring out his wrath in Hell for eternity?
AMEN..but you want get the answer you want.
And of course they will not give you an answer that follows the logic of Calvinist beliefs
Hi Tom, Arminians believe God loves everyone as described in #2 above. God’s wrath was fully manifested at the cross, and in that sense hell is not necessary (at least not for humans). Some will be in hell because they reject God’s provision for them in Christ.
What about all the wrath in the book of Revelation?
Hi Tom, Condemnation does remain on those who reject God’s provision for them in Christ. What Arminians cringe at is the idea that God has an innate need to manifest his wrath, and that God still must fulfill this need in lieu of the cross. This minimizes Christ’s work at the cross. God prefers that everyone believes in his son, and if everyone did, hell and wrath wouldn’t be necessary. John 3:17-18 comes to mind here. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Kevin,
Do you understand John 3:17-18 as teaching that the only reason people go to hell is that they do not believe? As in God took out all his wrath for their sins on Jesus on the cross so unbelievers do not go to hell because of their sins, but only because they do not believe?
Hi Tom, There are two factors in understanding the Arminian view of Christ’s work at the cross – Jesus died for all, and those who believe will be saved. You can see both of these in John 3:16-18. Those who do not believe are still guilty of their sins (they stand condemned already) because they do not believe. There is no provision for the forgiveness of sins outside of Christ.
Thanks for clarifying, Kevin. Some people say that people go to hell because of unbelief, not because of their sins because Jesus paid for them, so I just wanted to make sure that was not what you are saying.
I have a hard time seeing how Arminians can claim #1 and #2 at the same time any more than Calvinists can. If one compares paradise to the wrath and agony of the last judgement described in Revelation I don’t understand how God “desires their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as he properly can” in both cases. It will be active wrath by God on unbelievers, not simply the passive results of their unbelief.
Hi Tom, Arminians strongly hold to #1 #2 and #3, with the understanding that God works in us persuasively, not coercively.
@ Kevin Jackson July 12, 2012 at 9:46 am
Hi Tom, Arminians strongly hold to #1 #2 and #3, with the understanding that God works in us persuasively, not coercively.
——– Kevin, if God is persuasive then he cannot be resisted if he chooses to be persuasive. Creating that feeling or inclination to accept Jesus, is God at work in us, and not of our own doing. I have the impression that Arminians don’t like the idea of not being in control and that a God in control can’t be a true God, but God being in control is part of the definition of being God.
Hi Scot, I don’t think your definition of persuasion is scriptural. There are lots of examples when God asked his people to do something and they ignored him (to their own detriment). And scripture also states that God draws everyone (John 1:9, Titus 2:11, John 12:32). God’s grace is not always effectual – a person can say no to God to their own detriment.
By his own plan and design God bestows moral freedom upon his creatures. God can give moral freedom precisely because he is all powerful. A weak God less would be afraid to do so.
Hey Kevin, I was simply quoting your use of the word persuasion. That did not originate with me, and you are right, one can say no to God, but not always, not ultimately. His will is superior. Jonah comes to mind.
Additionally, the idea that the future can be known by God but without causing it comes close to being an oxymoron. It also implies chance, even non-theologian Einstein said he does not believe God gambles with the universe. The outcome of the world is certain, and the only way it can be certain is not give us complete freedom to live always outside of his will. There is no chance God’s plan will fail, therefore our salvation is not a chance dependent on us to say yay or nay. That would fit Einstein’s gambling scenario.
Mathematically, under the Arminian error, none could choose to go to Heaven, which reduces Christ on the cross as just a “nice-try” at salvation, another way of saying “God played dice with the universe.”
Nope, Jesus died for a reason, not to be just a potential. He died for those whom he called, and those whom he called have been known to him, by him.
That’s why Calvinists profess that their hope is in the Lord and not in themselves as Arminians do.
I see Arminianism as a refusal to submit to the sovereign love of God, a relucatnce to admit that they are not in control of ultimate things. I understand not wanting to admit one is helpless, it’s certainly more prideful to say: “Look at me, I chose the Lord….” Scripture does not allow for pride in salvation.
Do we have the capability, each of us to live outside of his will 100% of our lives? If you believe so, then you believe it about those who have died and those not yet born, and have to admit that it’s possible no one gets to heaven.
Do you believe it’s possible that no one gets to heaven?
Hi Scot,
You need to learn to represent Arminianism honestly. You are either ignorantly or deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs of Arminians. I hope it’s the former. I encourage you to read some works by Arminians – so that you understand what we really believe. Even if you disagree, at least you will be more informed. If you cannot converse in a more charitable and truthful manner, I won’t allow you to post here further. You have been warned.
Arminianism is a grace centered theology – we believe that we can do nothing on our own – not even believe, unless God first draws us. Arminains believe in the love and power of God, we do not believe in ourselves. Arminians believe God knows the future exhaustively and that he is always able to bring about his purposes, we don’t believe he “rolls the dice”. Arminans believe that we have limited but real free will. Not because we’re man centered, but because that’s the way God created us – by his design and in his image.
There is a difference between certainty (Arminianism) and necessity (Calvinism). Certainty does not imply causation, necessity does. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree that God knows the future. Arminians believe that God knows the future without causing it. Just like we know things that happened in the past with certainty but didn’t cause them, God knows the future with certainty without having to cause everything. This is evidence of His greatness. In Arminianism God knows that some people will believe, and others will not (to their own detriment). As Tozer wrote, “When [man] chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it.”
It’s important to not apply human limitations to God, and I think you are inadvertently doing this by arguing that God can’t give moral freedom to his creation if he wants to. As humans we often can’t know things with certainty unless we cause them. But God is bigger and stronger and wiser than we are. He can see even the future without having to cause it. In reality, Arminians have a much stronger and greater view of God’s sovereignty than do Calvinists. Arminians believe God is able to give humans limited but genuine freedom and simultaneously He is also able to bring about his purposes. Calvinism says that God is too weak and fearful to do that.
The problem with Calvinism is that (from the the Arminian view) it turns God into the devil. I’m not saying Calvinists are devil worshipers, but rather that by misunderstanding the nature of God’s sovereignty, Calvinists end up inadvertently making God evil and weak. If God is good (He is), and if He causes everything (like you say He does), then there wouldn’t be any evil. The fact that there is evil in the world is evidence that God doesn’t cause everything. Arminians believe free will exists – not because we care about free will, but because we believe God is good. Since God is good and the world is fallen, the only explanation is that humans made the world a bad place – not God. This scriptural (people in the Bible often did things that God did not prefer) and it comports with reality. I can choose to wear either a red shirt or a blue shirt tomorrow. God knows which I will choose, and my ability to make that choice doesn’t threaten God’s eternal purposes.
You really think Calvin turns God into the Devil? Really???
You chastised me rather severly, undeservedly, and did not share with me the crime you accuse me of. I am not aware of anything mean I said.
Hi Scot,
Among other things you accuse Arminians of believing that God rolls the dice, that we believe Christ just made a nice try at salvation, that we trust in ourselves and not the Lord, that we refuse to submit to God’s sovereignty, that we want to be in control, and that we’re prideful. You are misrepresenting Arminianism. Read some works by Arminians, so that you learn what we believe. Try “Predestination Calmly Considered”, by John Wesley (see link on the right side bar).
Arminians believe that God is able to accomplish his purposes, that Christ died for everyone, that everyone who believes will be saved. We trust in God, we submit to his power and greatness. We believe salvation is all of God, we know that we are sinners, that we are not in control, and that we are entirely at the mercy of God’s grace. We are dependent on Him. Now, you may not believe that Arminians really hold to these things. But you need to show from Arminian sources where we say the things you accuse us of. At most, all you can say is that it is your personal belief that Arminianism leads to the things you accuse us of, while recognizing that we do not actually hold to those things.
You assert that God makes the decision for us (regarding salvation). This is not scriptural. Scripture teaches that we must believe in Christ in order to be saved. No where does scripture say that God does the believing for us. That is a philosophical assertion.
I do believe that Calvinism (inadvertently) makes God worse than the devil. I’m not saying that Calvinists are worshiping the devil or that they believe they are. Rather, from the Arminian view, that we see this as the logical and inevitable end result of Calvinism. While admirably attempting to uphold God’s sovereignty (but in a misguided and non-scriptural way), the end result of of believing that God causes everything is to make God dishonest and the author of sin. Scripture says God does not desire evil, that Jesus died for everyone, that God wants all to be saved, that God wants us to be freed from our sin, and that he invites every person to come to him. Yet Calvinism instead teachers that God only loves a few and secretly hates everyone else. This flat out contradicts scripture, and (from the Arminian view) turns God into a liar. The devil wants everyone to perish, and is at least front about it. In Calvinism God causes most people to perish all along while saying that he wants everyone to be saved. This (from the Arminian view) turns God into a liar and makes him worse than the devil.
I believe that Calvinism creates pride in its adherents. It’s evident in your style and tone in your posts here. Calvinists frequently think they are “know it alls” and don’t even take the time to learn what Arminians really believe. And Calvinism creates a caste system where God loves the “elect” and hates the “reprobate”, with the result being that Calvinists end up being proud that God chose them, and see no need to treat others with respect. Caste pride is not possible in Arminianism, because we believe that God wants all to be saved, and that he wants all to believe. We know that we all need God’s grace and love, and we know that everyone should be treated with respect. We are all on the same ground, there is not one special class of people that God loves while hating everyone else.
Again, I’m not saying that Calvinists believe God is worse than the devil, or that Calvinists believe that they are proud. Hopefully you see the difference. I’m saying that from the Arminian view this is the fruit of Calvinism. Of course you can also say that in the Calvinist view the end result of Arminianism is pride, man-centeredness, and a diminished view of God’s greatness. And that’s fine, as long as you are also able to accurately present what Arminians really believe, and recognise that while you see those things as the end result of Arminianism, we do not actually believe those things.
Sounds like a one way street, you have written opinions as truth and say incredulous things. You continue to bypass the most cogent understandings I’ve shared. This is not a board for understanding but a board for your opinions. That’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.
Calvin believes the only ones who ge to heaven are the ones who believe in Christ, and that only God causes you to believe in Christ. Arminius preferred thinking it was a free-gift of potential and not a reality until the human accepts it. I have said nothing untrue. God gets the glory for my belief because he gave me the belief and not me myself.
I think Arminians, Opinion, think they chose to believe and do a disservice to the Lord by asserting such. THat they believe proves that GOD is at work in them, but they just don’t want to say he caused their decision.
Jesus never said: “This is a free gift to you, and you are free to turn away from me eventhough I chose you.”
Yep, I think Arminianism is a false doctrine and should not be taught.
See ya, be safe!
Yes, you can choose to wear a red shirt. You cannot chose to go to Heaven without God making that decision for you. We ultimately have no say and that’s the glory. My salvation is in God’s hands, not my own. Thanks be to God!
Hi Scot,
There is no pride or honor in accepting a gift. I could send you a check for $1000, but it wouldn’t do you any good unless you signed it. Signing the check doesn’t change the fact that you received a gift that you did not earn. The same is true with the gift of salvation. It must be accepted to be of benefit. Nowhere does scripture say that God causes us to believe.
Acts 16:30-31. “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
John 1:12-13 ” But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave His only son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life”
Romans 10:13 “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
I have yet to hear from you where it says in scripture that “God makes us believe”.
In the end I do believe that Calvinism turns God into a monster worse than the devil, and that all too frequently it causes pride among its adherents.
You are welcome to post further, but only if you represent Arminianism accurately and if you behave in graceful manner. Tom (another Calvinist) posts here fairly often, and I’ve never had to warn him. In the end, you’re right. This is my board. And if you can’t follow the rules, you can’t post further.
Tom, obviously not.
Interesting is to consider Judas Iscariot.
The Lord knew what shenanigans the man was up to. Was Judas acting on his own “Free Will” to betray Jesus or was he acting out the plan put in place by God. If the betrayal was up to J.I. then, it means the cross wasn’t really a Plan, but an afterthought in response to JI’s action.
IF JI was playing the role ASSIGNED to him, then we can see that as evidence that God does send some to perdition.
One can argue, well I think, that sending JI to hell is counter to the concept of a loving god (the way Arminians on this board describe as “loving”).
So, since I believe JI was playing what was assigned him, and since I believe the man is in hell, and sending someone to hell is less-loving than loving, then there has to be something more important to God than what we consider to be “love”.
Peace!
Arminians believe that God foreknew what Judas would do without causing him to do it.
Yes, If he foreknew then J.I. really had no choice. He could not have chosen differently from what God foreknew. Certainly God foreknew what J.I. would do, before J.I. knew he was going to do it, or do Arminians posit that God only knows a few moments in advance of events?
Hi Scot, Arminians generally hold that God exhaustively knows the future without causing it. This view is called “simple foreknowledge”. Here’s a post I did about it a while back. Simple Foreknowledge
So Earl, did you get your question answered? God decides who goes to heaven, and who does not, so some are doomed for hell in accordance with God’s plan.
Eitiher we are slaves to God (doulos) or we are part-timers.
As you know, the slave doesn’t tell the master that he is “free today, but will be back tomorrow”.
Hi Scot,
Could you explain how the Gospel is good news to the reprobate?
Thanks,
Russ
Hi Rus,
Because they work out their portion of God’s will.
How is that good news?
They fulfill God’s plan, just as Judas Iscariot did. Fulfilling God’s plan is good news.
Scot’s view (that being sent to hell for eternity is “good news” for the lost) is an example of how (in the Arminian view) Calvinism makes God worse than the devil, and how Calvinism depersonalizes the lost. This is the type of pride, lack of care for others, and blasphemous treatment of God’s character that Arminians cringe at.
Scot,
Again how is that good news to the reprobate?
Hello
Could you give me a link to the original post on Arthur Pink? I can’t find it.
Why did the ardent Calvinist, Scot, not deal with the question re children? I think this is a weak point in the theory. Most Calvinists can’t be consistent re their own children. To his credit (sort of) James White was full-on and said that it was fine with him if one of his children had been chosen for hell.
Hi Anthea, thanks for stopping by. Here are a couple of quotes from Pink’s book The Sovereignty of God. They can be found in Chapter 1, God’s Sovereignty Defined)
“When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody;”
“To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterise his conscience, as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is that the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.”
And a quick comment on the second quote: From the C view, anyone who is a “Christ rejector” was decreed to be that way by God, and can’t do other than what they do. It doesn’t make any sense to talk about that person’s conscience being cauterized. Their conscience is what it is by God’s eternal plan and decree. This kind of inconsistency comes up in Calvinism all the time. :)
John MacArthur (also a Calvinist), has criticized Pink’s view of God’s love, and includes the above quotes. You can find that here. Kind of like Carson, MacArthur fudges on point #2.
Most C’s don’t answer the question about children. It makes them inconsistent, but I suppose it’s a good inconsistency. Those who do answer it are getting close to hyper Calvinism.