Unconditional love, does it exist?

[Mathetes]

I've been thinking about this for a while. Many times we hear about unconditional love, and some people assume that such a thing exists, but I wonder. Not necessarily in reference to God, but just in general.

Anyone who's watched the Animal Planet channel on TV will know that people who are really attached to animals (I think some of these tend to be lacking somewhat in self-esteem) will talk about how animals love us unconditionally. But is this really true? I think they just mean that animals love us regardless of whether we're thin or fat, beautiful or ugly, short or tall. In fact, even bypassing the issue of whether animals really love us or whether this is an anthropomorphism, I don't think animals love us unconditionally. If you stopped feeding your dog, and you mistreated him, I think his "love" for you would turn sour pretty quick.

Do people love unconditionally? I don't believe so. I mean, I love my wife tremendously, but if I somehow found out that she was a serial killer, I'd have to re-evaluate my feelings about her. Most of us, I think, love people to the degree that they reflect values that we admire. If someone we love fails to meet certain conditions to a serious enough degree - maybe they become unrepentant blasphers, or persistently untrustworthy, or somesuch - would we still love them? There's an interesting dimension to that as well, since it's assumed that we are to love sinners, that's why we preach the gospel to them. But even on those grounds, if someone continues in their sinful ways, do we shake the dust from our feet and move on?

Then there's the subject of God and unconditional love - most of us, as Reformed would say that God only loves the elect: that saving and regenerative love is only expressed to those who come to Him in faith. But yet, is there maybe a sense that God loves even the worst sinner as a work of His creation? Now if true, this would be no more significant than saying that God loves a tree or a moose. Still, it's a kind of love nonetheless, no?

Anyways, just food for thought...

 

[Tim]

To speak of a loving animal is definitely an anthropomorphism. But I think you have already come to that conclusion?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Why does God elect those whom He elects? Because He loves them (Eph. 1:4-5).

Why does he love them? Because of "faith foreseen" or any other virtue(s) that they possess? No, He loves them because He loves them, which is to say that He loves them unconditionally (God does not love us because He elects us; He elects us because He loves us--for His own sovereign purposes).

Since election is unconditional, so is the love that is its foundation.

Because electing love is unconditional, however, does not mean that there are no conditions in the administration of the covenant: God chastens His own that they might learn obedience through the things that they suffer. It's sometimes put this way: the covenant is unconditional in its inauguration though it has conditions in its administration. God, in his love, unconditional as it is in its inception, does not smile upon us in our sin. Neither does he cast us off. Of course, He has the power to, and will, ultimately bring to repentance and restore to faith His own. God both loves us and keeps us.

We don't have the power to keep others. Only God does. However, we too mirror God in His unconditional love. A husband, e.g., is to love his wife both justifyingly and sanctifyingly (Eph. 5: 25-27): He is, at every point, to accept her as she is, and to seek, at the same time, to bring her to the full flowering of Christian womanhood.

You raise more questions than this, but I'll leave it here for now.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Mathetes]

To speak of a loving animal is definitely an anthropomorphism. But I think you have already come to that conclusion?

Yeah, I think so. I mean, pets will show a measure of affection, but I think that what we really call "love" requires an intellectual component that goes beyond what animals are capable of. Animals can be intelligent, but I don't believe that they can reason or conceptualize. But when you love someone, I think there needs to be an intellectual capacity to recognize things like loyalty, truth, goodness, etc. That's the way I see it, at least.

 

[Tim]

Also, we are made in God's image, and animals are not. When we love, we are displaying a communicable attribute of God. Love was first present between the members of the Trinity, etc.

 

[Herald]

Our ability to love unconditionally is flawed because of sin. As so often accompanies acts of love on our part, there is often the motivation of "what's in it for me?". This motivation exerts less force upon us the more we yield to Christ, and love as he loves. While our ability to love as Christ loves is handicapped by indwelling sin, it is still the example we are to follow. To the extent that we walk by the Spirit we can love as Christ loves.

 

[py3ak]

2 Corinthians 12:15
And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

Here is a very practical example of love that never fails, being exercised from one man to others. It is natural for love to desire reciprocity; it is painful to love someone and not be loved in return. Yet here Paul gives himself as an instance of supernatural love, and shows us that it is possible to love others as Christ has loved us, according to the commandment (John 13:34; 15:12; 1 John 4:11).

Trust can obviously be lost; revelations about a career as a serial killer certainly might interfere with one's ability to delight in a given person; but to the extent that we love as Christ did, to that extent our love will continue no matter what. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it. It would, I think, minister much to the peace and comfort of the churches if we all sought to have the love which bears all things without regard to whether it is acknowledged or returned.

 

[Mathetes]

That's an interesting point, to be sure. I mean, the example of finding out your spouse is a serial killer is kind of silly but I think what I was getting at is that sometimes a righteous anger toward someone is justified. I mean, there are plenty of stories on the news about mass murderers, suicide bombers, kidnappers, and Joel Osteen. Sure, it's questionable whether you can love someone you don't know, but let`s say you did know such a murderer or terrorist...is it possible to love someone and have righteous anger towards them? Would the writers of the imprecatory psalms still have loved the object of hymns?

 

[py3ak]

I think anger and love can coexist. Consider parental discipline, for instance: there is love, and yet there is a kind of anger as well.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I think a parent's love can be unconditional for some parents.

Taking the serial killer analogy, if I discovered my son was a killer I would continue to love him even if I was the one who worked with the police to capture him. That love would not depend on his love for me, but upon his need for help and my responsibility and desire to provide it. Neither would my love for him depend upon the level of his repentance, nor would it be through a lack of empathy for his victims and their families. I believe that (for me) there would be no limit to this love, but that I would also join with those who would seek to incarcerate him for the protection of others and to punish him for his wrong-doing. The same goes for his sister in terms of limitless love. I would live his or her pain and the pain of those affected by his actions.

The one caveat to all of the above is that I could and would not do anything to aid the authorities in securing his death under Country or State law. But that speaks more to my resistance of the Death Penalty than it does to a surfeit of love.

But I think this need not signify that I would be a pushover, doormat, mug or anything other than just as far as God will allow. So yes, in the human realm I do believe in unconditional love. but agree that not everyone would act as I hope and believe I would.