There is, of course, a twofold love of God, that for the non-elect and that for the elect. While great benefits accrue to the non-elect from Christ's atoning work, including the blessings of common grace and coming to high expression in the entreaties, the overtures, and the imperatives of gospel preaching, there is nevertheless a radical difference between the benefits of divine love as they pertain to the non-elect and the elect. The difference lies in the distinguishing love that ensures for the elect that they will be partakers of the atonement. It corresponds to the distinguishing nature of divine election.
S. Lewis Johnson, “Foreward,” in Gary Long, Definite Atonement (Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers, 1977), xi–xii.
Dr. Johnson held to a strictly limited view of Christ’s substitution, but he strongly affirmed God’s universal love and common grace. He also affirmed the well-meant offer.
7 comments:
Mr. Byrne,
How is it love in any true sense of the word, beyond the benefits of common grace (as well as the rain falling on the wicked and the righteous alike in this world)?
How is God's love universal if multitudes of the objects of that love end up in eternal torment?
Thanks for your time.
Hi Aaron,
I am unsure about your first question. I am not sure if you are asking me 1) if God loves all men above and "beyond" the benefits of common grace, or 2) if he is loving them (those that finally perish) at all by means of the common bounties of providence. I assume that your second question sums up what you are driving at.
I don't see how the end result of eternal torment rules against the notion that God loved them. In fact, I think punishment for the sin of ingratitude (Rom. 1:21, 2 Tim. 3:2) underlines the benevolence of God's disposition towards them in this world. Those tormented were obligated to be thankful for what they received, in whatever measure. That itself argues for a universal aspect to divine love. They are to be thankful for blessings, and not cursings. Judgment comes as a result of the abuse of God's loving patience and kind providence. No one is expected to say to God, "Thanks for only hating me!"
If God has ordained that those who abuse his grace suffer more for doing so, that doesn't mean that he never meant to bless them when they received his bounties. God may give fire to warm a man, and yet determine that if he uses it foolishly he shall be burned by it. In other words, the end of things does not exhaustively explain divine intentionality.
Before we continue (if we do), are you asking the question from the viewpoint that God only loves the elect? Since we have never spoken before, I don't know the theological paradigm from which your question arises. That might help for the sake of clarification in future communication.
Also, if you're interested in historical perspectives on this, then check my Subject Index under "The Love of God" section.
Tony
To further underline my point above about the end of things not exhaustively explaining divine intentionality, consider this, Aaron: God may determine to give a person over to some act of disobedience, but that does not negate the fact that he wants them to comply with his commandments.
Example: The tree of life was given to bless Adam, but he was disobedient and therefore punished. Nota Bene: One might erroneously and narrowly look at the end (the punishment) and conclude that God never wanted to bless Adam by means of the tree of life.
Hi Tony,
You said the following:
"I don't see how the end result of eternal torment rules against the notion that God loved them."
I don't see how the end result of eternal torment could do otherwise than rule against the notion that God loved them.
Now granted, God has a love for all men in a general sense, but His special redemptive love (that love which is eternal) is set upon those whom He has chosen.
I may be misreading you, but it doesn't appear that you give enough emphasis to God's intention in the cross. It appears you are more inclined to focus on His action.
Be that as it may, in what sense is it love if the object of it spends eternity in the pit? Love never ends. The love which God has for all men in a general sense is temporary, only for this life. What good is it for the damned?
Hi Aaron,
You said:
"I don't see how the end result of eternal torment could do otherwise than rule against the notion that God loved them."
Then you said:
"Now granted, God has a love for all men in a general sense, but His special redemptive love (that love which is eternal) is set upon those whom He has chosen."
In the first statement, you seem to be saying that God never loved those that end up in hell. Then, in the second statement, you seem to be saying that he did love them in a general sense. Which is it? Obviously, no Calvinist would think that God has a "special redemptive love" for them. That's beside the point. The question is: Does God IN ANY SENSE love the non-elect in this world, i.e., those that end up in hell? It's a yes or no question. I say yes. The quote by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson also affirms that. Do you affirm that???
You appear to when you say, "The love which God has for all men in a general sense is temporary, only for this life." I could ask you, "What good is that for those that end up damned?"
Let me try to clarify the matter. First, I am not saying that God loves all mankind alike. There is obviously a special love for the elect of God. Second, I am not saying that the kind of love which the non-elect receive in this world continues once they are damned. All of this is crystal clear in the quote by Dr. Johnson in the main post as well.
What I am affirming is that A) God loves all mankind, but especially the elect. Either one agrees with that or they do not. Dr. Johnson, even though he takes an Owenic view of the nature and extent of Christ's death, affirms the same thing.
It is the hyper-Calvinists that deny that God has any love for the non-elect in this world.
Here are the options:
1) God loves all men EQUALLY.
2) God loves all men generally, but he especially loves the elect.
Type 2a) General love and common grace is in some way associated with the cross. This type 2a group could be further sub-divided into varying atonement views (strictly limited or dualistic).
Type 2b) General love and common grace is not associated with the cross in anyway.
3) God only loves the elect.
I am in group 2a (i.e., within the dualistic version of 2a). Dr. S. Lewis Johnson is also in group 2a, but he holds to a strictly limited design to Christ's death.
Where are you?
Tony,
I'm comfortable with 2a in the Dr. Johnson sense.
But in the end, what argument have you won? Your main apologetic task here appears to be proving God's general love for the non-elect. OK. If you're trying to get at hyper-Calvinists, by all means. But I don't think your typical Calvinist denies God's general love and common grace to unbelievers.
In the grand scheme of things, there are bigger fish to fry--theologically speaking.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your response.
The point of this post is not to win an argument, but to present a picture of mainstream Calvinistic thought on the love of God, the grace of God, even as related to the atonement. Look at this post over on the Puritan Board in order to understand my concern. The place is a popular breeding ground for hyper-Calvinism. Look at the poll at the top. Of the 68 people that have responded so far (some of which are ministers and teachers), the vast majority either do not associate common grace with the cross (31 people), or they do not think that God is gracious to the non-elect at all (29 people). The latter view is hyper-Calvinism, but the former is a minority view historically. Only 8 people take your view in the poll.
Very few Calvinists have historically disassociated common grace from the cross. The quote by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson is actually orthodox mainstream high Calvinism. It helps to show that many at the Puritan Board (and elsewhere) are severely imbalanced, to say the least.
I have spoken with some hyper-Calvinists who appeal to some of Dr. Johnson's arguments, and yet they are not aware of what he said about God's common love and common grace. This quote helps them and others to be more historically self-aware.
How popular is Steve Camp's blog these days? He's another one who is interviewed on Calvinism (on Iron Sharpens Iron), and yet he denies common grace and common love, not to mention God's universal saving will. One can be easily misled by the way he associates himself with the past teachers he regularly quotes from, such as Spurgeon. Camp is not a Spurgeonite, and neither is he teaching what the Puritans thought on this subject. Dr. Johnson's view is much like Thomas Manton's, so it helps to show people what certain respected Calvinists have taught on these matters.
Also, if you're in positon 2a, then I don't understand your interest in saying:
"I don't see how the end result of eternal torment could do otherwise than rule against the notion that God loved them."
That's the sort of thing hyper-Calvinists bring up. It's certainly not something Dr. Johnson would say, as if it follows that he never loved them, and eternal torment proves that. The very thing you say a "typical Calvinist" won't do is surfacing in your own arguments.
Post a Comment