Gods love towards those in hell?

[MW]

Again, this is based on mankind's limited and earthly abstract thinking. Metaphysics is solely based upon logical thinking which stems from mankind's observation and learning upon this earth. Metaphysics is quite incapable of allowing ppl to think and come up with any type of ideology beyond that which he knows or has learned here on earth.

Are you doubting the metaphysical certainty that it is impossible for non-being to think or to choose?

 

[OPC'n]

Again, this is based on mankind's limited and earthly abstract thinking. Metaphysics is solely based upon logical thinking which stems from mankind's observation and learning upon this earth. Metaphysics is quite incapable of allowing ppl to think and come up with any type of ideology beyond that which he knows or has learned here on earth.

Are you doubting the metaphysical certainty that it is impossible for non-being to think or to choose?

Absolutely not. I completely agree with this idea. However, what I'm saying is that metaphysical ideology is based solely on what we can observe or learn or know this side of heaven/hell. It cannot extend into that which it doesn't know. This idea of "to be or not to be" looks to be that of earthly knowledge however great and rational that knowledge is. I say that only bc of what Christ says of Judas. Christ seems to be letting us into a realm of knowledge (although he has limited that knowledge to us) that goes beyond the concept of "to be or not to be".

 

[MW]

However, what I'm saying is that metaphysical ideology is based solely on what we can observe or learn or know this side of heaven/hell.

METAphysics is not confined to a specific place. Its conclusions pertain to reality as such. It is simply impossible for non-being to think or choose. Any choice is a choice to be, even the nonsensical choice to not be.

 

[OPC'n]

So the other concept could be that a non-being lacks the ability to choose and the knowledge outside of metaphysics is that knowledge of God who can choose what that non-being would desire and that is to "not be" if he were to end up in hell. That is what Christ says of Judas.

 

[MW]

So the other concept could be that a non-being lacks the ability to choose and the knowledge outside of metaphysics is that knowledge of God who can choose what that non-being would desire and that is to "not be" if he were to end up in hell. That is what Christ says of Judas.

The statement of Christ pertains to the realm of well-being, not being, and specifically addresses the desire of being to pursue its own perfection. It is moral, not metaphysical.

 

[OPC'n]

So the other concept could be that a non-being lacks the ability to choose and the knowledge outside of metaphysics is that knowledge of God who can choose what that non-being would desire and that is to "not be" if he were to end up in hell. That is what Christ says of Judas.

The statement of Christ pertains to the realm of well-being, not being, and specifically addresses the desire of being to pursue its own perfection. It is moral, not metaphysical.

I understand that Christ has "well-being" being in mind for Judas in that Judas' well-being wouldn't be persevered once he got to hell. But in order to persevere his well-being he states that it would be better if he had not been born. That would be the only way to avoid him not having "well-being". To apply metaphysics, in essence he is speaking for Judas what Judas does not know himself but Christ does know.....it would be better if he had not been born. In this way, he is speaking beyond our metaphysical ideology into things we do not know or understand.

 

[Iconoclast]

Scripture speaks of the love of God being In Christ.
rom5:
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.....which those in hell do not have, how does the love of God manifest itself to them if they are eternally separated from Him? God owns the "rights' to all men by virtue of creation. When Romans 5 speaks of God's love it has the elect in view.

again in Jer.31-
3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. This speaking of a redemptive love indicates an unchanging object of that love.

I am having trouble with the idea of love found outside of the Lord Jesus Christ.To be apart from Christ seems to be apart from His love.

 

[earl40]

Rev. Wintzer is physical life a temporal benefit? If so is eternal "life" or conscious existence in hell a benefit which is based on love? If so did the disposition of God change towards the reprobate after they died physically?

The following is from your review on Murray on The Free offer....."The disposition of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."

PS. This was the only part of your excellent article that left me confused and what has prompted the OP.

 

[KMK]

I am having trouble with the idea of love found outside of the Lord Jesus Christ.To be apart from Christ seems to be apart from His love.

Do you believe in common grace?

 

[Iconoclast]

I am having trouble with the idea of love found outside of the Lord Jesus Christ.To be apart from Christ seems to be apart from His love.

Do you believe in common grace?

Hello KMK,
yes...i do believe in common grace as was argued by David Silversides in his debate with Pastor Hanko:
1. Common Grace: Is it Biblical? - SermonAudio.com
2. Common Grace: Is it Biblical? - SermonAudio.com

In the discussion/debate on common grace there is a distinction made between God's goodness and love. I see nothing wrong with the idea of explaining how God is indeed good to all men mt5:45....but I never have seen a biblical case made that there is a love for reprobates that extends into eternity.

If the difference and distinction is maintained that the goodness of God is different from the love of God then this discussion sorts itself out.
If someone wants to combine God's goodness and love as if they are interchangeable ,I am not going to argue of the words being used as to their meaning. I scripturally feel more comfortable to defend the sharp separation between the Holy and profane...that Ezekiel chided the priests about:

Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

When God would preserve the godly line in the time of the flood....His love was in the Ark....not outside with the world of the ungodly.


My understanding at this time according to the scriptural language part of what makes hell and second death so horrific is that the reprobate is confirmed in a state of death, indeed the second death.

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

The perpetual sin of the reprobate without any grace or mercy leaves him hopeless as it is at odd's with God's perfect Holiness.

2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I see no glimpse of any prospect of mercy or love in these passages.

Part of what makes the second death so frightful is an eternity apart from communion with God, much less any of the revealed torment that accompanies it.
Heaven is Heaven because of the Holy attributes of our immutable God being a vital part of our communion with Him.

I do not see anywhere in scripture that in Heaven.... saints undergo any of God's wrath.....or any correction as sin will not be there. Why then would I expect some kind of non redemptive love to be manifest in hell?

God as creator has the "rights" over all men to do as he pleases.

4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

I never present God's love to anyone as being found outside of Christ.He being the propitiation for His people worldwide.At this time I am not aware of scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise.





17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.[/QUOTE]

 

[MW]

The following is from your review on Murray on The Free offer....."The disposition of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."

That is dealing with Prof. Murray's claim of a loving disposition to the reprobate in relation to THE FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL. Anything relating to the gospel offer is in and of itself a part of God's salvific purpose, and must be distinguished from what is "common" or "general." That is the main point of the review on that subject. There is also space given to explaining the reformed understanding of common love in order to show how it is restricted by its very terminology.

Again, there is no desire to minimise the eternal decree as it bears on the destinies of individuals. But these individuals have their being from God. The creation theme runs throughout Scripture. It is not confined to the beginning. So it is worth pondering. What is "creation" that it should be deemed so important and valuable? Why did God not sever the Creator-creature relation with the reprobate? He certainly does not need them to live for ever.

This subject bears on the issue of annihilation, which is being raised by some "evangelicals" today. They affirm annihilation of the reprobate is more befitting the loving nature of God. It is because they have lost sight of the biblical philosophy of creation and life. Let's avoid their error.

 

[earl40]

The following is from your review on Murray on The Free offer....."The disposition of God towards the reprobate which these temporal benefits express is conditioned by His decree of reprobation to hate the vessels of wrath and to reserve them, by means of these benefits. for everlasting damnation."

That is dealing with Prof. Murray's claim of a loving disposition to the reprobate in relation to THE FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL. Anything relating to the gospel offer is in and of itself a part of God's salvific purpose, and must be distinguished from what is "common" or "general." That is the main point of the review on that subject. There is also space given to explaining the reformed understanding of common love in order to show how it is restricted by its very terminology.

Again, there is no desire to minimise the eternal decree as it bears on the destinies of individuals. But these individuals have their being from God. The creation theme runs throughout Scripture. It is not confined to the beginning. So it is worth pondering. What is "creation" that it should be deemed so important and valuable? Why did God not sever the Creator-creature relation with the reprobate? He certainly does not need them to live for ever.

This subject bears on the issue of annihilation, which is being raised by some "evangelicals" today. They affirm annihilation of the reprobate is more befitting the loving nature of God. It is because they have lost sight of the biblical philosophy of creation and life. Let's avoid their error.

Thank you that is very helpful. I do see where common good providence or benefits are not connected with the cross but in God's dealings with men that are made in His image thus the word hate instead of love is used in the quote. Thank you once again.

 

[OPC'n]

What is "creation" that it should be deemed so important and valuable? Why did God not sever the Creator-creature relation with the reprobate? He certainly does not need them to live for ever.

He does need them to live forever. Romans 9 tells us why. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.. I'm not sure why this Scripture is being overlooked as to the reason why he sustains them in hell.

 

[MW]

He does need them to live forever. Romans 9 tells us why. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.. I'm not sure why this Scripture is being overlooked as to the reason why he sustains them in hell.

God needs nothing. He is blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. And we have been over the limitations of Romans 9. You might choose to reject what has been said but it is misleading to say the Scripture "is being overlooked."

 

[OPC'n]

He does need them to live forever. Romans 9 tells us why. What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—.. I'm not sure why this Scripture is being overlooked as to the reason why he sustains them in hell.

God needs nothing. He is blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. And we have been over the limitations of Romans 9. You might choose to reject what has been said but it is misleading to say the Scripture "is being overlooked."

I used "need" in terms of "want" or "desire". I understand that God doesn't "need" any of us. Perhaps Romans 9 hasn't been overlooked and I just missed the comment you or others made concerning it in relation to why he sustains ppl in hell. If I did miss it, I apologize. I will look for that comment later.

 

[MW]

If you were using the term "need" in that way, I will account your response irrelevant to the point I was making, since I obviously did not use it in that way.

You have already accepted there is a "common love" even in the light of Romans 9. The "vessels of wrath" are as much a present reality as an eternal one, according to the apostle's statement. So it is obvious that Romans 9 itself does not rule out a common love, according to your admission. If Romans 9 does not tell us all there is to know about God's relationship to the reprobate I do not understand why I am repeatedly called back to it as if it does.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

Back to the original point, if "being" is good, and those in hell have "being," then those in hell have something that is good. They have this from God. If it is an expression of "common love" on earth, and God does not change, then it must still be an expression of common love in hell.

THIS FINALLY CLICKED WITH ME! I am beginning to get it. Ruben has attempted to explain this multiple times to me, no doubt with the best mental crayon he could muster up at the time. But for some reason, this is where I finally begin to understand this. Pastor Winzer has been blessed with the gift of good mental crayon for the sake of some of us.

But now that I have begun to understand this, I am feeling very strange. Creepy almost. A good biblical strike at ones world view is one thing. However a Biblical strike at one's God view can be daunting and take some adjustment time.

Thank you for spelling this out so simply Pastor Winzer. Ruben, thank you for your patience brother!

 

[py3ak]

Mr. Winzer:


Yours truly:


Thanks to Earl for starting a discussion that has resulted in so much clarification.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

I was thinking more a comparison as such Ruben.

 

[py3ak]

That also works!

 

[OPC'n]

If you were using the term "need" in that way, I will account your response irrelevant to the point I was making, since I obviously did not use it in that way.

You have already accepted there is a "common love" even in the light of Romans 9. The "vessels of wrath" are as much a present reality as an eternal one, according to the apostle's statement. So it is obvious that Romans 9 itself does not rule out a common love, according to your admission. If Romans 9 does not tell us all there is to know about God's relationship to the reprobate I do not understand why I am repeatedly called back to it as if it does.

I went back over our comments and the only thing I found concerning Romans 9 was that God makes vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy from the same lump of clay so it must be assumed that he loves them bc they bear his image. You didn't address the reason Romans 9 gives for why he bears with them with patiences while on this earth.

Anyway, I'm going to try and sum up your logic on this subject.
1. God loves his creation (mankind) either with common love or saving love depending on who they are
2. God loves his creation bc they bear his image
3. God never changes
4. Bc God never changes this common loves must follows them to hell
5. God sustaines them with this love in order to forever show his wrath upon them.

If that's not right, please correct what I have wrong.

I agree with 1-3 for now although I'm beginning to change my mind on common love and think it's really only common grace, kindness and patience that we see at work. However, one could say that showing them these things is a loving act. I would change 4-5 for this reason:

4. God never changes but he can withdraw his love just has he withdraws his grace. To say that God never changes and thus his love his love for them never changes, one would have to apply that to other characteristics of God such as grace and patience even kindness. But we know that grace, patience and kindness do not follow them to hell. One is then stuck with "Is God changing with these three characteristics of himself?". We know that God doesn't change so that can't be the answer. However if we apply the fact that God can withdraw from ppl his grace; patience; and kindness, then there is no reason why one can't assume that he can withdraw his love from them also. But I have to decide what sustains them if it isn't the love you say it is. Well, that's easy. His desire to sustain them in order to pour his wrath upon them forever. They sinned against a holy God and they must pay for that. They cannot be annihilated bc that would not pay for their sins. Only bearing his wrath forever satisfies God's righteous judgment against them. It only satisfies him bc that's what he has declared would be their judgment not that they will ever be able to pay for their sins ever.

5.There are Scriptures which states God hates the wicked, but we know that he has to have some common love (although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read bc all the Scriptures I have been reading speaks of his patience kindness etc and his actions show a common grace but no where do I see him stating or showing a common love which would go against Scriptures which states he hates the wicked. Now this hatred could be his end contempt towards them in hell.), common patience, common kindness, and common grace upon them bc we see it everyday. One must then reconcile these two things using more Scripture: God hates the wicked but shows them common love (if we can still say this), patience, kindness, and grace. Romans 9 reconciles these two things for us. He bears with them with patience to show his wrath and power to vessels of mercy. Also Romans 2:3-5 states, "Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." The ungodly enjoy his kindness patience etc but for one reason....they are storing up wrath for themselves. So God does withdraw these things from the ungodly once they enter hell. Common grace, patience, kindness etc do not follow them to hell I think we all can agree upon and can agree that it's not bc God changes but bc he has withdrawn those things from them as he can the common love of which you speak.

 

[MW]

although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read

This doubt changes the complexion of the discussion, and is really another subject for another thread.

 

[OPC'n]

although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read

This doubt changes the complexion of the discussion, and is really another subject for another thread.

I'm surprised that's all you got out of what I said especially when I even stated doubt about my own doubts on common love by stating, "However, one could say that showing them these things is a loving act." and "Now this hatred could be his end contempt towards them in hell".

 

[MW]

although I'm now starting to doubt common love the more I read

This doubt changes the complexion of the discussion, and is really another subject for another thread.

I'm surprised that's all you got out of what I said especially when I even stated doubt about my own doubts on common love by stating, "However, one could say that showing them these things is a loving act." and "Now this hatred could be his end contempt towards them in hell".

I'm not sure what you want me to say. Any thought that there is common love for those in hell depends on the acceptance of common love in this world. If common love in this world is doubted I have no leg to stand on. What is the point of going on? The same applies with your reference to Romans 9. If you accept common love with the reprobation taught in that chapter, then Romans 9 itself cannot be used against the concept of common love. But if you now doubt common love, then that has to be established before anything can be based upon it.

 

[OPC'n]

I can understand your point of position. If God doesn't love them here how could he love them in hell. And this common love comes from the fact that they bear his image. What have you found in Scripture that explains what it means to bear God's image?

 

[MW]

What have you found in Scripture that explains what it means to bear God's image?

Genesis 9, James 3, men as fallen are still regarded as bearing His image in some sense. The reformed have different ways of distinguishing the image of God in man. The most common is the broader and narrower definition. Another way is the natural and moral definition. Broader and natural refer to the gifts of being, intelligence, volition, etc., while narrower and moral refer to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. The fall has effaced the image of God in terms of the latter but not the former.

 

[OPC'n]

What have you found in Scripture that explains what it means to bear God's image?

Genesis 9, James 3, men as fallen are still regarded as bearing His image in some sense. The reformed have different ways of distinguishing the image of God in man. The most common is the broader and narrower definition. Another way is the natural and moral definition. Broader and natural refer to the gifts of being, intelligence, volition, etc., while narrower and moral refer to knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. The fall has effaced the image of God in terms of the latter but not the former.

I've decided that I care more about you than I do about whether God loves ppl in hell or not. And I don't care about what happens to them bc it's too late for them. And as much as I think about ppl in my family or friends who are not Christians, and I cry for them everyday that they will be, I can't give the verge of my broken heart to those in hell to care even though those I love might end up there...I just can't do that. You see to say that I love you enough to sustain you gives one enough hope that something will change. If only I was good enough here or there then YOU WOULD LOVE ME. Idk what hell is like, but a glimmer of hope for them to endure is worse than God saying, "I hate you for what you are and who you are and this is your torment" than to have him say "I love you enough to sustain you bc you bear my image but here's your torture"..... I don't know how to explain this except that I'm a black and white person....love me completely or don't at all. I can't see the in-between and I'm sure I'm leaving something Godly out of all that, but my brain can't go there right now.

 

[MW]

I've decided that I care more about you than I do about whether God loves ppl in hell or not. And I don't care about what happens to them bc it's too late for them. And as much as I think about ppl in my family or friends who are not Christians, and I cry for them everyday that they will be, I can't give the verge of my broken heart to those in hell to care even though those I love might end up there...I just can't do that. You see to say that I love you enough to sustain you gives one enough hope that something will change. If only I was good enough here or there then YOU WOULD LOVE ME. Idk what hell is like, but a glimmer of hope for them to endure is worse than God saying, "I hate you for what you are and who you are and this is your torment" than to have him say "I love you enough to sustain you bc you bear my image but here's your torture"..... I don't know how to explain this except that I'm a black and white person....love me completely or don't at all. I can't see the in-between and I'm sure I'm leaving something Godly out of all that, but my brain can't go there right now.

God's love to the elect lies at the heart of the reformed faith. Any discussion of common love can only be peripheral and is open to disagreement. As I've attempted to show, though perhaps I failed, the term "love" shares no real affinity to the love God shows to His people. It is only useful because the concept helps us to think through other matters. It would be very sad if a discussion on this subject led to confusion in relation to God's saving love. As far as I can see, it is better to be strong on election and to deny common love than to accept common love and begin to misunderstand election. Blessings!

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

If I may, more specifically, traditional reformed faith embraces the threefold distinction of God's love, of which God's love to the elect is only one aspect. The following is from Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology.


TWENTIETH QUESTION: THE GOODNESS, LOVE, GRACE AND MERCY OF GOD
How do they differ from each other?

I. As vindictive justice (treated of in the preceding question) and hatred, wrath and severity (pertaining to it) are concerned with the infliction of physical evil or of punishment, so goodness and the qualities contained under it (viz., love, grace and mercy) are occupied with the communication of good, but diversely.

II. The goodness of God is that by which he is conceived not only absolutely and in himself as supremely good and perfect (as it were) and the only good (autoagathon, Mk 10:18) because he is such originally, perfectly and immutably; but also relatively and extrinsically as beneficent towards creatures (which is called benignity) because it is of the reason of good to be communicative of itself.

III. Although the goodness of God extends itself to all creatures, yet not equally, but exhibits the greatest diversity in the communication of good. Hence one is general (by which he follows all creatures, Ps. 36:6, 7); another special (which has respect to men, Acts 14:17) and another most special (relating to the elect and referred to in Ps. 73:1: “God is good to Israel”). If you seek the causes of this diversity, various ones can be assigned besides his will. (1) It was in accordance with his supreme dominion to show the most free power in diffusing his gifts (which in this inequality is exhibited in the highest manner). (2) The wisdom of God demanded that a certain order should exist in things (which is beheld in the connection of superiors and inferiors). (3) It conduced to the beauty of the universe (which creatures differing in form, actions and qualities render perfect. (4) It afforded a better demonstration of the inexhaustible fountain of divine goodness, since one creature could not receive the full communication of good (thus it should be imparted to more).

IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follow creatures, called "love of the creature" (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called "love of man" (philoanthrōpia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called "the love of the elect" (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroēn) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

V. A threefold love of God is commonly held; or rather there are three degrees of one and the same love. First, there is the love of benevolence by which God willed good to the creature from eternity; second, the love of beneficence by which he does good to the creature in time according to his good will; third, the love of complacency by which he delights himself in the creature on account of the rays of his image seen in them. The two former precede every act of the creature; the latter follows (not as an effect its cause, but as a consequent its antecedent). By the love of benevolence, he loved us before we were; by the love of beneficence, he loves us as we are; and by the love of complacency, he loves us when we are (viz., renewed after his image). By the first he elects us; by the second, he redeems and sanctifies us; but by the third he gratuitously rewards us as holy and just. Jn. 3:16 refers to the first; Eph. 5:25 and Rev. 1:5 to the second; Is. 62:3 and Heb. 11:6 to the third.

VI. These four things in the highest manner commend the love of God towards us: (1) the majesty of the lover; (2) the poverty and unworthiness of the loved; (3) the worth of him in whom we are loved; (4) the multitude and excellence of the gifts which flow out from that love to us. (a) God loves us (who, constituted in the highest preeminence [hyperochē] and happiness, needs us not and is not bound to love us; indeed can most justly hate and destroy us if he so willed). (b) Men are beloved, not only as empty and weak creatures, but as sinners and guilty, rebellious servants, who so far from deserving it, are on the other hand most worthy of hatred and punishment (viz., enemies and covenant breakers). (c) He in whom they are beloved is Christ (Eph. 1:5, 6*), the delight of his heavenly Father and the “express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3*), than whom he could have given nothing more excellent, nothing dearer, even if he had given the whole universe. (d) The effects of his love are both many in number and great in value (viz., all the benefits by which salvation is begun in this life and perfected in the other and, what is the crown and sum of all blessings, the gifts of God himself, who imparts himself to us as an object of fruition both in grace and in glory).

VII. Grace succeeds love from which it is called chnvn (“gracious,” Ex. 34:6) by which God is conceived as willing to communicate himself to the creature from gratuitous love without any merit in the creature and notwithstanding its demerit. Now it is usual to understand it principally in two ways: either affectively (as they say), i.e., with respect to the “internal act” in God; or effectively, with regard to the effects which it produces outwardly in creatures. The former is towards us, and we stand objectively related to it; the latter is in us, and we stand subjectively related to it. In the former sense, it denotes the favor and benevolence of God (of his benignant and disposed will) bestowing all things liberally and gratuitously, not from our merit or desert. Again, this implies either the favor by which he loved and elected us to life from eternity (in which sense election is called “the election of grace” [Rom. 11:5], and we are said to be “predestinated to the praise of the glory of his grace” [Eph. 1:6], i.e., of his glorious grace) or that by which he regards us as graceful and accepted in the Son of his love (in which sense, most especially, the apostle often invokes “grace and peace” upon the believers to whom he writes, i.e., both the favor and benevolence of God and its effects of every kind, which are signified by the word “peace,” according to the Hebrew idiom). In the same sense, mention is made of the grace of God in Rom. 3:24, Lk. 1:30 and Tit. 3:7.

VIII. In the latter sense, grace (taken effectively) indicates all the gifts (charismata) of the Holy Spirit gratuitously given to us by God: whether ordinary – of faith, hope and love – for each one’s salvation bestowed upon us in calling, conversion and sanctification (in which sense the word “grace” is used in 1 Cor. 15:10 and Eph. 2:7, 8); or extraordinary and miraculous – for the common edification of the whole church (which are designated by the name of grace in 1 Cor. 12:4, 7, 8 and Eph. 4:7). The Scholastics were accustomed to calling the latter gifts by the name of grace gratuitously given (gratiae gratis datae), but the others by the name of grace making acceptable (gratiae gratum facientis). But this is false both because the ordinary gifts no less than the others are gratuitously given and because they cannot make us acceptable to God (since this is the effect of the sole grace and righteousness of Christ imputed to us). Therefore grace making acceptable with more propriety implies the benevolence of God towards us by which (not from our merit, but by his gratuitous love) he makes us acceptable in Christ. By grace gratuitously given are indicated all the gifts gratuitously conferred on us through the Holy Spirit. And this grace in reference to the variety of its acts is distinguished into operating or preventing (which moves the will to will) and cooperating and subsequent (which effects the performance of the volition). We will treat the latter in the proper place.

IX. Again, grace is distributed into decretive and executive. The former denotes the eternal purpose of God concerning the electing of us before the foundations of the world were laid. The latter embraces the universal dispensation of that wonderful mystery (according to the variety of degrees and times) which exercised itself towards the elects in redemption and in calling, justification, sanctification and other salutary effects (which Paul alludes to in Eph. 1 and 2 Tim. 1:9, 10).

X. Mercy attends upon the grace of God. For as the latter exercises itself about man as a sinner (granting the pardon of his sin) so the former is exercised about man as miserable (relieving his misery). This is properly ascribed to God not as signifying grief arising from the misery of another (as it is in men), but as indicating a prompt and disposed will to succor the miserable without any anguish or perturbation of mind.

XI. It does not spring from any external cause which usually excites this effect in men (as the tie of blood, of friendship, the company of misery, imbecility of age, sex, etc.). Rather it springs from his goodness alone (as he loves to communicate himself to the creature and as he does not refrain from succoring the miserable). Indeed it requires misery in the object, but only as holding the relation of condition and quality and not of a cause. So freely is it occupied about it, that it can exert or not exert itself without injury to anyone. Hence it is said “he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy” (Rom. 9:18).

XII. Mercy is commonly considered as twofold: the one general by which God succors all creatures subjected to any misery (Ps. 104:27); the other special by which he has compassion on his own, electing out of the mass of fallen men certain ones to be saved through Christ (who are, therefore, called “vessels of mercy”). The former is temporal, occupied only with secular things (ta biōtika) and the good of this life; but the latter is saving and eternal, blessing us with the possession of salvation and of eternal life.

XIII. The magnitude of his mercy may be collected from various sources: (1) with regard to the principle of pitying, (viz., God who, perfectly happy in himself and in want of nothing ,yet moved by his good pleasure [eudokia] alone, condescended to have mercy upon us); (2) with regard to the objects (i.e., men upon whom he takes pity who not only deserved nothing, but are totally unworthy of this favor as sinners and enemies of God); (3) with regard to the mode and effects because he pardons our innumerable sins, removes eternal misery from us and bestows an infinite and eternal good (to wit, life and salvation); (4) with regard to duration because it is eternal (chmd ‘vlm, Is. 54:8; Hos. 2:19; Lam. 3:22; Lk. 1:55*). Hence it is to be opposed: (a) to the severity of the divine justice, in which sense it is said “to rejoice against judgment” (Jam. 2:13); (b) to the number and heinousness of sins (Mic. 7:18); “For where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5:20), and “God hath concluded all in sin, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32*); (c) to the multitude of miseries and temptations because there is not one so great from which the supreme mercy of God, according to his inexpressible riches, does not free us (Ps. 103:8; Eph. 2:4, 5); (d) to the terror of death and the divine judgment because in that decisive day all the pious will obtain mercy (2 Tim. 1:18).

XIV. Although the mercy of God is most ample and manifold with regard to the effects which are innumerable (in which sense he is called “abundantly merciful” [polyeleos, Ps. 51:1; 1 Pet. 1:3], oiktirmoi [i.e., commiseration and bowels of compassion are ascribed to God, Rom. 12:1]), yet it has its own objects and vessels into which it is poured out (viz., the elect and believers upon whom he determined to have mercy from eternity, who are distinguished from others whom he decreed to pass by and are therefore called “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” (Rom. 9:22). It is an asylum for the penitent and pious, but not a refuge for the impenitent and impious.

 

[a mere housewife]

II. The goodness of God is that by which he is conceived not only absolutely and in himself as supremely good and perfect (as it were) and the only good (autoagathon, Mk 10:18) because he is such originally, perfectly and immutably; but also relatively and extrinsically as beneficent towards creatures (which is called benignity) because it is of the reason of good to be communicative of itself.

God is most good; but he who is most good is also most communicable. Therefore, as God created the world from his infinite goodness, that he might communicate himself to it, so in like manner he preserves, administers and governs the world which he created by the same goodness.

-Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, 'Arguments drawn from the nature and attributes of God' under the 10th Lord's Day, Q. 27