The LOVE of God

[WrittenFromUtopia]

God's Love

Arthur Pink, in his timeless 20th century work The Sovereignty of God asserts "That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief." What is it about the human nature that makes us so determined to bring the focus upon ourselves as much as possible in all things? From where does all of this self-centeredness come? The answer, quite obviously, is Sin. Sin has so corrupted our hearts that our wills are in subjection to evil influence and to the suggestions of Satan on a recurring basis. Apart from God's grace and a new heart we are slaves to Sin and its deception. Rather than taking time to carefully and painstakingly study the Scriptures for all matters of faith and stand upon a firm foundation of truth, we find ourselves becoming apathetic towards the absoluteness of God's truth and even, like the pagans, relativistic about what the Bible teaches us. Also, like the pagans, we so often give in to the temptation to construct doctrines on the ideas of men and our own opinions rather than the inspired Word of God that has been delivered to us once-for-all.

So, on the issue of God's love, what does Scripture say?

In brief summary, we should note that God's love is only mentioned in the Old Testament in regards to His chosen people, those who love His law and obey His commandments.

In the New Testament, despite popular liberal belief, we find much of the same.

Most obviously, in the book of Revelation, God's love is only shown towards His people who have repented and put faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, while all other human beings (throughout history) are punished for their iniquities and transgressions against the most holy Lord.

In all of the letters of Paul and the other apostles, God's love is always, without exception, mentioned in the context of being towards those who love the Lord and obey His commandments, those who are God's chosen people, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ alone. Truly, the very fact that God's love is described as being "in Christ Jesus our Lord" makes it even more clear that His love is expressed, through Christ, to those who repent and believe in the gospel.

In the book of Acts, the very book where the foundations of evangelism and gospel-preaching are found (And the very book where one would look to find the mentioning of God's love in evangelistic efforts), there is never once mentioned by anyone (presenting the gospel) the factor of "God's love". Furthermore, and quite importantly, the gospel is not "offered" to anyone at all; No, it is always given as a divine decree and command handed down from God almighty to all the people upon the earth, from every tribe, tongue, and nation who are at enmity with God and who are required to repent and believe lest they perish.

Finally, in the four Gospels, the only time we find mentioned God's love in seemingly universal terms is in John chapter 3. However, it can be quite easily shown that, in context, this love is even exclusive (Unless we become like the heretic universalists who believe all will be saved!).

"œFor God so loved the world (or For this is how God loved the world), that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 (ESV)

Since all sound hermeneutics are based on three principles of interpretation (Context, context, and context), we must look at this passage carefully to see the truth expressed. In fact, it would be doing violence to the text and wrongly dividing the Word of God to not read the entire passage in context. However, since that would take plenty of extra space to do, I'll summarize.

Nicodemus, a Pharisee, has come to Jesus declaring that he knows He is the messiah. Jesus turns the conversation around and tells Nicodemus that men must be born again (born "from above" in Greek) in order to be saved. Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot be saved. Finally, Jesus tells him that the Spirit moves where it wills and you don't know where it comes from or where it is going, so it is with everyone who is born of God.

In context, John 3:16 through the rest of the chapter is a summary of this encounter between Nicodemus and our Lord. It makes no sense whatsoever to attempt to interpret one verse in the middle of a section of Scripture without taking into account its context, yet this is what so many people do when they cite this verse.

John is telling us that God has chosen to display His love towards people from all over the world (not just Jews anymore!), and the object of His love are those who believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who has died for their sins. The "world" in this passage is not "every single person that has ever lived and ever will live, inclusively." If it were, then all men would be saved, without exception and we would become heretical Universalists. Not only this, but we would need to ignore the fact that countless thousands and millions had perished from the earth before Christ came into the world. What about their salvation? No, the only way to properly interpret this text is to use contextual clues to find the truth God is conveying to us through the apostle John.

It can be said, then, that God's love towards mankind is defined as "in Christ", making it only apply to those who are "in Christ" and saved by God's free grace and mercy.

Finally, what about the original language used in this text? A simple Greek word study of the word kosmos, here translated "world" in English, shows that this word in Greek can be used for many different circumstances with various meanings, depending on context.

In the New Testament, the word kosmos is used in at least SEVEN different ways! Let's look at them below.

It is used to describe ...

... the Universe as a whole in Acts 17:24
... the Earth itself in John 13:1; Ephesians 1:4, etc.
... the "world system" in John 12:31
... the whole human race in Romans 3:19, etc.
... the human race minus believers in John 15:18; Romans 3:6, etc.
... the Gentiles in contrast from the Jews in Romans 11:12, etc.
... believers only in John 1:29; 3:16,17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19


So, we can clearly see that the word "world" is not as obviously translated as many would like to assume! May we be more diligent about searching God's Word for His pure truth! Yes, this requires patience and hard work, but is God's truth not worth such effort?

The clear teaching of all of Scripture as a whole on God's love is that it is directed towards those who love Him and obey His commandments, those who are "in Christ", and this is only possible through God's free grace. This is only possible for men who are given a heart that no longer is bent towards evil but one that is capable of submitting to and obeying God's law with anticipation and joy!


Some other Scriptures for consideration and meditation:

"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." Jesus answered him, "œIf anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
John 14:21,23 (ESV)

I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Proverbs 8:17 (ESV)

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.
Psalm 5:5 (ESV)

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:38-39 (ESV)


As it is written,

We love because he first loved us.
1 John 4:19 (ESV)



[Edited on 15-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

Gabriel, thanks for your essay. Very well written, evoking worship and thanksgiving in my heart toward the King.

I'm not sure why so much of the Body of Chirst tries to cheapen the quality of the love of God through a universalistic application thereof. The Old Testament is a historic chronicle and testimony of God's specific favor and affection upon a single nation, not the entire world. That's what makes His Grace so awesome and inspiring, that we become the object of God's desire simply because it pleased Him to do so! That truth propels me into a realm of worship and adoration that the universalistic approach falls tragically short of (at best). For if that is the case, then Christ's death was less than perfect in that He wasn't able to secure salvation for those given to Him by the Father and for whom He died.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement.

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

You're welcome!

 

[QueenEsther]

Yes, good essay.

 

[BJClark]

WrittenFromUtopia;

I was reading Ps. 5:5, the other day...and it hit me the same way...and it was like WOW!!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

So if "world" here means "elect" then we have some problems. First of all, to where did Jesus descend (vs. 13) here? The elect or the world? How does Jesus' illustration of being publically lifted up like the serpent (vs. 15) fit with the parallel explanation of vs. 16? How can those to whom Christ is given not believe and remain condemned? If world means elect, then we have to assume that either the elect can reject Christ and remain condemned and/or we must all become gnostics. Notice the difficulties that such an interpretation causes in the surrounding text.

John 3
13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the ELECT to condemn the ELECT, but in order that the ELECT might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the ELECT, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I'm pretty sure Pink's point was that "world" or "kosmos" in Greek is pretty ambiguous (moreso than any English word we could think of, probably), and can be used in many different ways. Context is key, of course.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I'm pretty sure Pink's point was that "world" or "kosmos" in Greek is pretty ambiguous (moreso than any English word we could think of, probably), and can be used in many different ways. Context is key, of course.

Yes and in context Pink was wrong. His assertion "That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief" is also wrong. Just read Calvin and several in the reformed camp since him. Or read the early church fathers. The church has always believed in some form of general love to the non-elect. If God only loves the elect, then we cannot love all our enemies. We must only love some of them just as our Father in heaven. Pink here confuses the giving of the Son to the elect with the public offer of His Son to the world as the only Savior for lost sinners. The love of God as described in John 3 can be rejected. Compare that to Romans 8 where the love of God permenantly seals and secures our salvation. In John 3, the love of God makes Christ known, in Romans 8, it secures the elect. Don't get me wrong, Pink's book is great. But he is wrong on this point.

 

[BJClark]

Puritan Sailor;

So how do we reconcile this with Psalm 5:5?

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.
Psalm 5:5 (ESV)


The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:5 (KJV)

If God hates ALL Evil doers or workers of iniquity, wouldn't that include the elect before they believe? but more importantly would believing that, change our view of God?

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Even among the Jewish people God didn't call everyone, He called those who were of the seed of Isaac.

Rom 9:11 For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Even where it calls us to love our enemies, what definition of love is being used? I think it means we treat them with respect as Gods creation, and we show them Christ working in us, but love in this context is not a 'feeling' but an action. Even Jesus *showed* Judas His love, but did He really love (agape) him as He did, say Peter? He didn't wish ill will on him, maybe because He knew he was already condemned, He knew this was the only heaven Judas would ever know.

And did God really give Jesus as a Savior to ALL the people in the world?

Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

1) to put in order, to station
a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint
1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one
b) to appoint, ordain, order
1) to appoint on one's own responsibility or authority

This tells us that not all were ordained (appointed) to believe, or every single one of them who were there would have believed.

Yes and in context Pink was wrong. His assertion "That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief" is also wrong. Just read Calvin and several in the reformed camp since him. Or read the early church fathers. The church has always believed in some form of general love to the non-elect. If God only loves the elect, then we cannot love all our enemies. We must only love some of them just as our Father in heaven. Pink here confuses the giving of the Son to the elect with the public offer of His Son to the world as the only Savior for lost sinners. The love of God as described in John 3 can be rejected. Compare that to Romans 8 where the love of God permenantly seals and secures our salvation. In John 3, the love of God makes Christ known, in Romans 8, it secures the elect. Don't get me wrong, Pink's book is great. But he is wrong on this point.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Bobby, you still have to deal with the huge problems created by reading John 3 with the world=elect interpretation. Do you unbeleive the elect can reject Christ and remain condemned? When Christ came, did he only descend upon the elect? Was he only a light shining into the elect?

Yes God hates all workers of iniquity. But God is love. Love is fundamental to his nature just like holiness, justice, goodness, etc. God is benevolent. He does not repay evil with evil but is good to all. This is the general "love" of God, at least what I mean by it. He is kind. He is longsuffering. He gives rain and sun to all. God out of his kindness to the world (a world in opposition to him), respecting man as the image of God, appeals to the reason of man when he calls all men everywhere to repent and believe. He publically tells them the way to eternal life. Jesus is the only Savior for lost sinners. John 3 is about that fact. You can only be saved by looking to Jesus. If you don't, then you will perish in condemnaiton. It is the public means of this offer, the preaching of the good news, that the Spirit works through to summon the elect and cause them to respond in faith.

But our ethical behavior toward our enemies is grounded in God's ethical behavior toward his enemies. He is always good. He is always meek and lowly of heart. He is slow to wrath. None of these are inconsistent with election or justice. God's wrath is a just wrath, not uncontrolled and unbridaled like the wrath of men. Just because he hates evildoers doen't mean he sins against them. And so we are called to hate sin, but we still live morally upright lives in the face of evil, showing kindness and goodness to all, even the worst sinners, especially the kindness of pointing them to Christ when we have such opportunity.

If you will say that God only loves the elect, then you destroy any ethical foundation for loving our enemies.


And notice the marvelous interplay John makes here.
1 John 5
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Those who do not believe call God a liar. Well, if Christ is only offered to the elect, then how can a reprobate call God a liar by not beleiving? A reprobate would actually be believing the truth if that were so. But eternal life is promised in Christ alone and this offer is made to all mankind. That is why John can call Jesus the 'Savior of the world.' God has only provided Jesus to save sinners from their sin. In him alone is eternal life. If you deny this truth, that you can only find life in Christ, then you call God a liar.

 

[BJClark]

Puritan Sailor;

you still have to deal with the huge problems created by reading John 3 with the world=elect interpretation. Do you unbeleive the elect can reject Christ and remain condemned? When Christ came, did he only descend upon the elect? Was he only a light shining into the elect?

for me they are not problems, I can reconcile them.

No, I do not believe the elect (appointed, the ordained, called out ones) can reject Christ and remain condemned, because He is gracious and merciful to some and not others.

His light shone FOR all men, but yet not for the exact same reason.

But God is love. Love is fundamental to his nature just like holiness, justice, goodness, etc. God is benevolent. He does not repay evil with evil but is good to all. This is the general "love" of God, at least what I mean by it.
He is kind. He is longsuffering. He gives rain and sun to all. God out of his kindness to the world (a world in opposition to him), respecting man as the image of God, appeals to the reason of man when he calls all men everywhere to repent and believe.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but I don't think God really cares if He appeals to the reasoning of men, just because we were created in His image, it doesn't matter what men think, God is STILL GOD, whether men acknowledge it or not.

can I ask you a question? And I don't mean to be disrespecful in anyway, but what is your definition of the word or title, GOD? When you think of what a god is, what comes to mind?

He publically tells them the way to eternal life. Jesus is the only Savior for lost sinners. John 3 is about that fact. You can only be saved by looking to Jesus. If you don't, then you will perish in condemnaiton. It is the public means of this offer, the preaching of the good news, that the Spirit works through to summon the elect and cause them to respond in faith.

The truth is Man is already condemned, and it's not only about looking to Jesus, but about believing in Him (and I think we are on the same page here) but is it really because God loves the elect? Or because He is God, and He said He would be mericiful to some and not others?

Just because he hates evildoers doen't mean he sins against them. And so we are called to hate sin, but we still live morally upright lives in the face of evil, showing kindness and goodness to all, even the worst sinners, especially the kindness of pointing them to Christ when we have such opportunity.

Who said anything different?

If you will say that God only loves the elect, then you destroy any ethical foundation for loving our enemies.

I didn't say God loves anyone...not even the elect...as even the elect were evil doers (in that all have sinned) --but how does, even that, destroy the ethical foundation of treating others in a loving manner, just as God does?

Again, it comes across as if you are using the term *love* as a 'feeling' or emotional based word and not an 'action' based word. Treating some one in a loving manner is an action--not an emotion or a feeling. It's not about feeling love towards someone, it's about showing love towards someone. Two completely different things.

So in that God can SHOW that He IS Love--and Loving, doesn't mean He LOVES Everyone..

I can certainly show people love, and not have 'feelings' of love for them at all.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

for me they are not problems, I can reconcile them.

No, I do not believe the elect (appointed, the ordained, called out ones) can reject Christ and remain condemned, because He is gracious and merciful to some and not others.

His light shone FOR all men, but yet not for the exact same reason.

If world = elect, then he didn't shine for all men, only the elect. The obvious message of John is that Jesus was given so that those in the world are confronted with the Savior. There are two groups in the world, whoever believes and whoever believes not. If world=elect, then you have elect folks not beleiving and being condemned, thereby rendering election meaningless.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but I don't think God really cares if He appeals to the reasoning of men, just because we were created in His image, it doesn't matter what men think, God is STILL GOD, whether men acknowledge it or not.

Why did God give us a Bible to be read and meditate upon? Why did he give prophets and preachers to explain it? Perhaps because God made us rational creatures, and appeals to our reason and understanding? We are thinking and acting creatures, created with the dignity of God's image. Just because our response to His word depends upon his Spirit, doesn't nullify the thinking process with which He created us. He condescends to us and tells us to reason with Him. We are made to fellowship and interact. And so he speaks to us on that level.

can I ask you a question? And I don't mean to be disrespecful in anyway, but what is your definition of the word or title, GOD? When you think of what a god is, what comes to mind?

God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

The truth is Man is already condemned, and it's not only about looking to Jesus, but about believing in Him (and I think we are on the same page here) but is it really because God loves the elect? Or because He is God, and He said He would be mericiful to some and not others?

Not sure where you are going here. Looking to Jesus and believing on him are the same thing, at least in John 3 (just like looking to the serpent Moses lifted up). I don't understand your question about love versus God's sovereignty. My point, contra Pink, is that God was acting in love in making Christ known to the world (the sinful world). It was a common grace. We know it's common because of it's effects. Some respond, some refuse. You can't refuse saving grace. Jesus is teaching in John how he is the object of faith, the only Savior for condemned sinners. If you would have life then you must respond to the kind invitation of this loving God and embrace Christ. What causes men to respond to the invitation we see earlier with the work of the Spirit in vs. 6-8.

I didn't say God loves anyone...not even the elect...as even the elect were evil doers (in that all have sinned) --but how does, even that, destroy the ethical foundation of treating others in a loving manner, just as God does?

Again, it comes across as if you are using the term *love* as a 'feeling' or emotional based word and not an 'action' based word. Treating some one in a loving manner is an action--not an emotion or a feeling. It's not about feeling love towards someone, it's about showing love towards someone. Two completely different things.

So in that God can SHOW that He IS Love--and Loving, doesn't mean He LOVES Everyone..

I can certainly show people love, and not have 'feelings' of love for them at all.

You can't seperate motive and action. To act loving without a loving motive is to act deceitfully. God is not deceitful. He acts in his kindness and compassion because that is his nature. Justice is not contrary to compassion. He can be kind to those who remain condemned by Him and await their sentence to be fully carried out. Electing love is His sovereign perrogative to pardon those whom he as chosen to save. But that doesn't mean he compromises his own goodness toward those whom he chooses to execute justice. Men are condemned for their sin, not their reprobation. God doesn't cease to be God just because they are reprobate. He is kind to the ungrateful and evil because that is his nature. And we are to follow him in that as His sons.

 

[Arch2k]

See the article John 3:16, A Brief Exegetical Study (Taken from “The Two Wills of God”) by Matthew McMahon.

From foot-note 59:

Here is a small list of Calvinist writers who believe John 3:16 is to the elect world: Augustine, Francis Turretin, Martin Bucer, John Flavel, Augustus Toplady, Jerome Zanchius, Robert Haldane, John Knox, Martin Luther, Christopher Love, Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, John Owen, Lorraine Boettner, John Newton, John Bunyan, William Whittaker, Thomas Doolittle, Samuel Annesley, Thomas Vincent, R.C. Sproul, and R. K. McGregor Wright. The following are those Calvinists who do no believe John 3:16 as special love to the elect: Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, John Murray, Ezekiel Hopkins, J.C. Ryle, R.L. Dabney. (John Calvin will be treated in a section later all His own due to his controversial views both seemingly for and against John 3:16 being for the elect.)

 

[BJClark]

Puritan Sailor;

God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

You misunderstood the question...

God--one who IS-- Ruler, Creator, Unchangeable, All Powerful, Holy, Perfect, Just, Wise, Eternal, Truth, Good, ect...

God is Ruler--therefore He rules

God IS Wise--therefore He gives wisdom...

God IS Creator-- therefore He Creates

God IS Just-- therefore He shows justice

God IS Holy--therefore He shows holiness

God IS All Powerful--therefore He shows power

God IS Love--therefore He shows Love

One describes WHO He IS, the other describes what He does Because of who HE is--God does not show Love because He loves, He shows love because HE IS LOVE, and so much more. To act otherwise would go against who HE IS...as, GOD

Looking to Jesus and believing on him are the same thing, at least in John 3 (just like looking to the serpent Moses lifted up).

To which I acknowledged, I thought we were on the same page in that respect..

I don't understand your question about love versus God's sovereignty. My point, contra Pink, is that God was acting in love in making Christ known to the world (the sinful world). It was a common grace. We know it's common because of it's effects. Some respond, some refuse.

It's about beginning to get a glimpse of just WHO God IS, as God. It's learning to look beyond His actions to see Him for who He is as GOD.

It's not just that God shows Love, it is that HE IS LOVE and all that LOVE encompasses.

Isn't that what we are to try and do, look beyond the actions of a person to even begin to see the person for who they are and not by what they do?

Jesus is teaching in John how he is the object of faith, the only Savior for condemned sinners. If you would have life then you must respond to the kind invitation of this loving God and embrace Christ. What causes men to respond to the invitation we see earlier with the work of the Spirit in vs. 6-8.

Right, but Jesus is not an object, He IS God. God in the flesh, beyond God's actions...God showed us who He is, through the actions of His Son.

You can't seperate motive and action. To act loving without a loving motive is to act deceitfully. God is not deceitful. He acts in his kindness and compassion because that is his nature. Justice is not contrary to compassion. He can be kind to those who remain condemned by Him and await their sentence to be fully carried out. Electing love is His sovereign perrogative to pardon those whom he as chosen to save. But that doesn't mean he compromises his own goodness toward those whom he chooses to execute justice. Men are condemned for their sin, not their reprobation. God doesn't cease to be God just because they are reprobate. He is kind to the ungrateful and evil because that is his nature. And we are to follow him in that as His sons.

Again, it appears your trying to put 'emotions' for the person as the motivating factor of our actions. Is God nothing more than a big ball of controlled emotions? Or is He more than that?

And we can be kind to those who sin against us as well, without having any feelings of emotional love towards them...can we not?

In reading 1 Corinthians 13 we could see this as...a description of God.

God is patient, God is kind. God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud. God is not rude, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. God never fails.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

God IS Love--therefore He shows Love

One describes WHO He IS, the other describes what He does Because of who HE is--God does not show Love because He loves, He shows love because HE IS LOVE, and so much more. To act otherwise would go against who HE IS...as, GOD

I thought I said the same thing? But the recipient of God's loving actions are also the recipient of His love. God is love, great! God does loving things because He is love, great! And what of the recipients of these loving actions? If they are the recipients of compassionate actions, then they have experienced the compassion of a loving person directed toward them personally. God is not just a sun radiating abstract love everywhere. Because He is love, he makes deliberate acts of kindness to His enemy out of love for them. You label that emotions, and for humans that may be true. But for God that is part of His essence. It's not an emotion but simply the way He is.

It's about beginning to get a glimpse of just WHO God IS, as God. It's learning to look beyond His actions to see Him for who He is as GOD.

It's not just that God shows Love, it is that HE IS LOVE and all that LOVE encompasses.

Isn't that what we are to try and do, look beyond the actions of a person to even begin to see the person for who they are and not by what they do?

I've been doing that this whole conversation. Apparently talking past eachother...

Right, but Jesus is not an object, He IS God. God in the flesh, beyond God's actions...God showed us who He is, through the actions of His Son.

I'm not sure why you object to Jesus being the object of our faith. It's because he is God that our faith looks to Him, and not something else. It takes hold of Him as the remedy for sin that God provided, just as the Israelites looked to the bronze serpent as the only means provided by God to save them from their disease. Perfectly orthodox terminology

Again, it appears your trying to put 'emotions' for the person as the motivating factor of our actions. Is God nothing more than a big ball of controlled emotions? Or is He more than that?

And we can be kind to those who sin against us as well, without having any feelings of emotional love towards them...can we not?

No. You must have some compassion upon them if you are going to love them truly. Emotions are fickle and must be brought into subjection to biblical motives. There is an intended person receiving our loving actions, and our motive toward that person governs our actions toward them. We don't love just to make ourselves feel good or because we are good. That is the motive of the Pharisee. We are kind and compassionate to the wicked because they are in bondage and we wish to see them free from it. We respect others because they are made in the image of God and are entitled to that respect. We are called as Christians to live in a community of loving relationships. We are suppose to be transforming the world with that end in mind. We invest in others because we actually care about them, no matter how wicked they are. If we don't care about them, then we are not being Christ-like nor are we keeping the law as it was intended, and our actions toward them, no matter how outwardly loving they may appear, are really just works of a Pharisee and not loving at all. Our loving actions are motivated by compassion for the person receiving them.

In reading 1 Corinthians 13 we could see this as...a description of God.

God is patient, God is kind. God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud. God is not rude, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. God never fails.

No objections to this.

 

[MW]

It seems to me that "world" is used in John 3:16 as a universalistic term to counteract the particularism of nationalistic election. The point of the passage is to show that God's purpose extends beyond national boundaries so as to include the world. So, from a biblical theology standpoint, where God's purpose is being progressively realised, it would be hasty to conclude that "world" equals "elect." Such a conclusion prejudices the historical process which manifests election and reprobation.

From the same biblical theology standpoint, however, it is clear that the reprobate are no part of the "world" that He sent His only begotten Son to save. They are described in John's gospel as the darkness. This darkness cannot comprehend the light, and will not come to the light lest its evil deeds be reproved. At last the darkness, together with its prince, is cast out of this world which God so loved. So that by the end of the historical process, the darkness (the reprobation) has been removed. What remains is the world that God loved and saved through His only begotten Son. It is undeniable that the "world" is to be equated with the "elect," from the standpoint of the completed historical process.

 

[a mere housewife]

I agree with Patrick. His tender mercies are over all His works. But there is a distinction between God's mercies to His works and God's dealings with sinner: all creatures have experienced God's love as Creator, but only some of them experience His special electing love as sinners.

Here is what Warfield says on this passage, after he takes 'world' to be the elect, not because I think he holds that God does not love all men as their Creator but because the same 'world' is spoken of as the one Christ came to save a verse later, and Christ could not fail of accomplishing that: "It may seem strange to us, indeed, to speak of the elect as 'the world.' But is not that largely because, in the changed times in which we live, we do not sufficiently poignantly appreciate or deal seriously enough with the universalism of Christianity, in contrast with the nationalism of the old dispensation? In this universalistic and anti-Jewish Gospel of John, especially, what more natural than to fine the 'world' brought into contrast with Jewish exclusivism? In fine, is not the meaning of our text just this: that Jesus Christ came to make propitiation for the sins not of the Jews only, but of the whole world, that is to say, not of course for each and every man that lives in the world, but in any event for men living throughout the world, heirs of the world's life and partakers in the world's fortunes? ...." (it goes on)

So he seems to take it both ways. Does that work, or not?

 

[BJClark]

Puritan Sailor;

Because He is love, he makes deliberate acts of kindness to His enemy out of love for them. You label that emotions, and for humans that may be true. But for God that is part of His essence. It's not an emotion but simply the way He is.

I don't think it's out of love for them, but more because it's what He does, shows Love to others..

If He loves them, then Psalm 5:5-6 would be a lie..

"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: The Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man."

1) to abhor, be abominable, do abominably
a) (Niphal) to be abhorred, be detested
1) in the ritual sense
2) in the ethical sense
b) (Piel)
1) to loathe, abhor, regard as an abomination
a) in the ritual sense
b) in the ethical sense
2) to cause to be an abomination

As would Psa 11:5

"The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."

1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
2) to be hated, detested

Even in Matthew 5:44 where it says to love your enemies...ect we need to look at what that type of love refers to, it's not about loving in an emotional sense.

1) to love
d) to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend

So even though God hates and abhors them (as per scripture), doesn't mean He treats them hatefully, because it's not within in His character to do so.

And maybe that is partly where our confusion is coming in...I don't assume that just because God hates...automatically means he will treat them hatefully, or want any harm to come to them.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I don't think it's out of love for them, but more because it's what He does, shows Love to others..

God is love. He does loving actions to enemies. His acts of kindness are purposeful and individual. Therefore the enemies are the recipients of His love. This isn't that complicated. You act compassionately toward someone because you choose to show compassion toward THEM.

If He loves them, then Psalm 5:5-6 would be a lie..

Not true at all. See your quote below.

So even though God hates and abhors them (as per scripture), doesn't mean He treats them hatefully, because it's not within in His character to do so.

And maybe that is partly where our confusion is coming in...I don't assume that just because God hates...automatically means he will treat them hatefully, or want any harm to come to them.

Love is not inconsistent with God's hatred. We are not speaking here of electing love but his general love or kindness toward all. His hatred is judicial and relational, and a response of His holiness toward sinners. But you can't divorce compassion and holiness. There are no parts in God. He is a good judge as you rightfully observe above. But being just and compassionate are not opposed. You may still have compassion toward those whom you will judge. Otherwise, God's loving actions toward them are deceitful if it is not his intention to express that compassion to the individual recipient of His action. He is not just radiating love abstractly. He is dealing with real people, condemned people. And he does so in a way consistent with His nature.

Where we disagree I think is God's disposition toward the reprobate. I believe he is kind toward them because as a Creator he still cares about His creatures. That doesn't nullify His wrath toward them. That doesn't diminish the special love He extends toward the elect. The elect are put on different relational ground in Christ. But he still exercises both compassion and wrath to His reprobate creatures in a way that doesn't compromise His other attributes. Yes, they remain condemned for their sin as they deserve, but as a just and compassionate judge he still does good to them, while they await their sentence. I hope this point narrows our discussion.