Does the Bible permit us to tell unbelievers that God loves them?

[JM]

R. C. Sproul answers this question:
Renewing Your Mind (Dr. R.C. Sproul) - Broadcast Archives

 

[caddy]

What's the short answer....

 

[Barnpreacher]

What's the short answer....

I listened to it last week and if I remember correctly he said that we should tell people that God loves all those that repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. So in that sense, God's love is conditional. He said if we just tell people that God unconditionally loves them then they will never see their need for faith and repentance.

 

[toddpedlar]

What's the short answer....

I listened to it last week and if I remember correctly he said that we should tell people that God loves all those that repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. So in that sense, God's love is conditional. He said if we just tell people that God unconditionally loves them then they will never see their need for faith and repentance.

Hm. Well, not having listened to his presentation of the issue, I'm not particularly with his take on it. Certainly it's true that God loves all those that repent and believe on Jesus, but God's love is prior to their repenting and believing, and so I'm not sure it's helpful even to mention it.

In fact, I can't see any reason to even desire to tell a person on the street that "God loves you". Whether or not God loves that person is irrelevant to the truth of the fact that they must repent and believe if they are to be saved. I don't see how saying "God loves you" is much of an inducement to repent and believe, anyway - rather, it seems a disincentive, for "If God loves me, then he'll accept me just the way I am and forgive me whatever I've done." Seems to me it's just a slick and syruppy enticement (that may not turn out to be true) and utterly misses the point of evangelism.

 

[Hippo]

I found the answer in the talk to be slightly unsatisfying as he based his position on what seemed to be a hyper-common grace position.

I do have sympathy as it is a really difficult subject to discusss with non believers, if we are brutally direct in our answer we do risk offending unbelievers in a very unproductive way.

In my mind it is much better to save our powder for arguing that they are sinners and for that reason they have no right to be loved by God than by denying that God loves them, after all we do not know who the elect are.

I do think that we should avoid making bold and incorrect statements like Christ dies for all individually or that God loves the reprobate, but that does not mean that we should trumpet the opposite.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

None of the 'call to repentance' sermons in the New Testament are framed around the message of God's Love.

A question that would be better answered might be, does God have a general love for his creation and all people but a special divine love set upon his elect?

 

[Hippo]

None of the 'call to repentance' sermons in the New Testament are framed around the message of God's Love.

The big problem is that nearly everyone, even most people who call themselves Christian, see God bring love as being the gospel. Any suggestion that things are actually more complex than that are seen as heresy.

For that reason alone we should be careful not to buy into, or even appear to buy into such a one dimensional view of God. In doing so most Christian denominations will see us as being at best small minded killjoys.

 

[jaybird0827]

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:13, AV)

"I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD; yet I loved Jacob. And I hated Esau and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Malachi 1:2-3, AV)

 

[Barnpreacher]

Remember guys, Sproul didn't frame the question. It was asked at the Ligonier Conference (I believe) and he was doing his best to answer it within the context of the question.

He wasn't necessarily endorsing going around saying whether we should or shouldn't tell people that God loves them.

 

[Mushroom]

I do have sympathy as it is a really difficult subject to discusss with non believers, if we are brutally direct in our answer we do risk offending unbelievers in a very unproductive way.

I do the "brutally direct" thing. Christ is a rock of offense and a stumbling block to the damned. The gospel is always unproductive with them. Paul called out to the philosophers on Mars Hill, told them about this "unknown God", and told them He commands all men everywhere to repent. Pretty brutally direct. Some mocked, but others wanted to know more....

 

[Sonoftheday]

Sproul's answer is definitely different than Rick Warren's.

[video=youtube;OvyyEIEDqrQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyyEIEDqrQ[/video]

Man I love the Imperial March.

 

[toddpedlar]

I found the answer in the talk to be slightly unsatisfying as he based his position on what seemed to be a hyper-common grace position.

I do have sympathy as it is a really difficult subject to discusss with non believers, if we are brutally direct in our answer we do risk offending unbelievers in a very unproductive way.

In my mind it is much better to save our powder for arguing that they are sinners and for that reason they have no right to be loved by God than by denying that God loves them, after all we do not know who the elect are.

I do think that we should avoid making bold and incorrect statements like Christ dies for all individually or that God loves the reprobate, but that does not mean that we should trumpet the opposite.

Certainly "trumpetting" the opposite isn't the right call - but we must be honest with those outside the fold. Outside of Christ there is no salvation - all have sinned and fall short, and if God is to be true, and just, then sin must be punished - there are no "free passes" handed out just because God's a nice guy. I honestly believe that none can come to Christ without knowing and believing the dire circumstances they are in apart from being in Him. Evangelism that lacks such a truth being presented is hardly evangelism at all (since without it, the good news is not particularly interesting or good news at all).

 

[Galatians220]

True believers in the doctrines of grace should be found in the very forefront of evangelism... "Point-men and -women," we should be.

Margaret

 

[DMcFadden]

Guys, the thrust of the thread is unfair to Sproul. He did NOT say that you should tell people that God loves them unconditionally. In fact, he said that this was an incorrect approach to evangelism. Not only did he not frame the question, he did not answer it in any way other than a Reformed manner.

He did (as R.C. likes to do), go into the background of standard Reformed teaching on God's love: 1. Love of Benevolence; 2. Love of Beneficence; 3. Love of Complacency (e.g., God's love for Jesus). He admits that God "loves" his creation (including unbelievers) in a common grace sense only. But, if you listen to his tape, he does NOT say what some are assuming (evidently without listening to it) that he says.

Some on PB deny the validity of common grace. You will be offended by R.C.'s answer. However, if you accept common grace, his answer is neither unbiblical nor unconfessional. God does not love the unbeliever in the sense that he does the believer. The unbeliever, he avers, is subject to the wrath of God. Their only share in God's love is limited to his rain falling on the just and the unjust alike.

When it comes to a universal offer, R.C. still holds to a limited atonement. The offer of the Gospel is extended to unbelievers, but only those who believe and receive it are people for whom Christ died.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Remember guys, Sproul didn't frame the question. It was asked at the Ligonier Conference (I believe) and he was doing his best to answer it within the context of the question.

He wasn't necessarily endorsing going around saying whether we should or shouldn't tell people that God loves them.

Exactly. I listened to it last week and Sproul openly rejected a view of a generic love of God that did not allow for the differentiation in the kind of love that God has for His elect. In fact, if I recall correctly, he placed the tenor on belief in God in the Gospel and not a generic love.

 

[Grymir]

Guys, the thrust of the thread is unfair to Sproul. He did NOT say that you should tell people that God loves them unconditionally. In fact, he said that this was an incorrect approach to evangelism. Not only did he not frame the question, he did not answer it in any way other than a Reformed manner.

He did (as R.C. likes to do), go into the background of standard Reformed teaching on God's love: 1. Love of Benevolence; 2. Love of Beneficence; 3. Love of Complacency (e.g., God's love for Jesus). He admits that God "loves" his creation (including unbelievers) in a common grace sense only. But, if you listen to his tape, he does NOT say what some are assuming (evidently without listening to it) that he says.

Some on PB deny the validity of common grace. You will be offended by R.C.'s answer. However, if you accept common grace, his answer is neither unbiblical nor unconfessional. God does not love the unbeliever in the sense that he does the believer. The unbeliever, he avers, is subject to the wrath of God. Their only share in God's love is limited to his rain falling on the just and the unjust alike.

When it comes to a universal offer, R.C. still holds to a limited atonement. The offer of the Gospel is extended to unbelievers, but only those who believe and receive it are people for whom Christ died.

Mega Ditto's! That is what R.C. teaches.