MarieP
Puritan Board Senior
I'm still trying to think and read through the historical distinction between God's "love of benevolence" and "love of complacency" toward His children. (Looking forward to reading Mark Jones' chapter on this in a couple weeks, Lord willing!)
Here is a sample of what I found:
"Due to the love of benevolence of our God, we are justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness. The divine love of complacency for us results from our sanctification, wherein progressively our Lord loves us not in spite of who we are, but because of who we are becoming. Jesus Himself tells us as much when He declares that He and the Father love obedient disciples: 'He who has My commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him…' (Jn. 14:21). As we grow in loving obedience, the Father and Son love us with complacency, and our cause for dread diminishes"- William Harrell
"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. John 3:16 refers to the first; Ephesians 5:25 and Revelation 1:5 to the second; Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 to the third"- Francis Turretin
"'Tis an untruth, that God loveth his chosen ones, as he doth love his Son; that is with the same degree of love wherewith he loves his Son; I think that not far from either gross ignorance, or blasphemy. It possibly may be the same love by proportion, with which the Father tendereth the Mediator or Redeemer, and all his saved and ransomed ones; but in regard of willing good to the creature loved, he neither loveth his redeemed with the same love wherewith he loveth his Son; except blasphemously we say, God hath as highly exalted all the redeemed, and given to them a name above every name, as he hath done to his own Son; nor doth he so love all his chosen ones, as he conferreth equal grace and glory upon all alike; as if one star differed not from another star in glory, in the highest heavens. Our own good works cannot make our Lord love us less or more, with the love of eternal election; but they may make God love us more with the love of complacency, and a sweeter manifestation of God in the fruits and gracious, effects of his love. According to that, John xiv. *J- Jesus said, if a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."- Samuel Rutherford
However, I also see the argument that the Father's pleasure and displeasure in us is not tied to His love. For instance, the term love doesn't actually appear in Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 (I realize this in and of itself doesn't disprove anything).
Also, there's the argument that God cannot love us more or less because Christ cannot have died for us more or less, and we cannot be more or less adopted by Him. Even when the Father chastens and disciplines us, it's because He loves us.
And this isn't to say that we aren't daily repenting of our sins and seeking fresh applications of forgiveness and grace. And no one is denying that God's "love of benevolence" ever changes. This also is not necessarily about the whole sanctification debate- I don't *think* denying the distinction would lead to a denial that the law is a motivation for obedience, or that sanctification is just getting used to our justification.
But I don't want to derail the topic. If possible, I want to just focus on the term "love of complacency." How would you argue for/against that terminology? Again, my question is whether we can hold to the reality that we can please and displease our Heavenly Father but say that He can't love us more or less.
Here is a sample of what I found:
"Due to the love of benevolence of our God, we are justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness. The divine love of complacency for us results from our sanctification, wherein progressively our Lord loves us not in spite of who we are, but because of who we are becoming. Jesus Himself tells us as much when He declares that He and the Father love obedient disciples: 'He who has My commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him…' (Jn. 14:21). As we grow in loving obedience, the Father and Son love us with complacency, and our cause for dread diminishes"- William Harrell
"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. John 3:16 refers to the first; Ephesians 5:25 and Revelation 1:5 to the second; Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 to the third"- Francis Turretin
"'Tis an untruth, that God loveth his chosen ones, as he doth love his Son; that is with the same degree of love wherewith he loves his Son; I think that not far from either gross ignorance, or blasphemy. It possibly may be the same love by proportion, with which the Father tendereth the Mediator or Redeemer, and all his saved and ransomed ones; but in regard of willing good to the creature loved, he neither loveth his redeemed with the same love wherewith he loveth his Son; except blasphemously we say, God hath as highly exalted all the redeemed, and given to them a name above every name, as he hath done to his own Son; nor doth he so love all his chosen ones, as he conferreth equal grace and glory upon all alike; as if one star differed not from another star in glory, in the highest heavens. Our own good works cannot make our Lord love us less or more, with the love of eternal election; but they may make God love us more with the love of complacency, and a sweeter manifestation of God in the fruits and gracious, effects of his love. According to that, John xiv. *J- Jesus said, if a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."- Samuel Rutherford
However, I also see the argument that the Father's pleasure and displeasure in us is not tied to His love. For instance, the term love doesn't actually appear in Isaiah 62:3 and Hebrews 11:6 (I realize this in and of itself doesn't disprove anything).
Also, there's the argument that God cannot love us more or less because Christ cannot have died for us more or less, and we cannot be more or less adopted by Him. Even when the Father chastens and disciplines us, it's because He loves us.
And this isn't to say that we aren't daily repenting of our sins and seeking fresh applications of forgiveness and grace. And no one is denying that God's "love of benevolence" ever changes. This also is not necessarily about the whole sanctification debate- I don't *think* denying the distinction would lead to a denial that the law is a motivation for obedience, or that sanctification is just getting used to our justification.
But I don't want to derail the topic. If possible, I want to just focus on the term "love of complacency." How would you argue for/against that terminology? Again, my question is whether we can hold to the reality that we can please and displease our Heavenly Father but say that He can't love us more or less.
Last edited: