The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum God's love

Thanks for sharing that personal information and I think that it does help shed some light on why you have taken the position you have taken. FYI, I had the unfortunate experience of doing part of my theological studies at the PRC seminary. To say that some of the things I heard taught there was painful would be an understatement.

Let me respond further by simply saying this... Even if, for the sake of argument, we say that God has some expression of love (which I much prefer to regard as philanthropia, benevolence, kindness, longsuffering, i.e., not meeting out immediate judgment upon sinners, in what context do you think it would be proper to state, "God loves all men"? Given the overwhelming abysmal condition of the visible church, especially in the West, to make such a statement would only confuse at best and even encourage unbelievers in their sin. I put out the challenge for you to find one instance in the apostolic preaching where it was said that "God loves you" to demonstrate that the Gospel preached by the Apostles and disciples never included that statement. But rather the focus was upon the fact that God is HOLY and that all men are under judgment and liable to everlasting punishment lest God in His infinite mercy grant them repentance unto faith in Christ.

IF, as you have suggested, that I am 'splitting hairs', then I am more than comfortable with that and will continue to describe God's interaction with the world at large as benevolent. As one example, Paul wrote:


Next to last, I would like to make a brief comment on the doctrine of "Common Grace". I reject the term for no other reason than the grace of God is hardly 'common', but always and efficacious salvific. Yet, as I have also commented previously, I totally reject the hyper-Calvinist view that holds that God only provides for the reprobate in order to damn them, further if possible, which I find obnoxious and biblically unwarranted. Louis Berkhof asked Herman Hoeksema if he would thank his unbelieving neighbor after he pulled his car out of a ditch. And Hoeksema responded with a resounding, "NO!" for the reprobate can do NOTHING good and thus is not worthy of any thanks. I am going to assume that you would disagree with that response if for no other reason than one would have to presume that the neighbor was one of the reprobate... which knowledge belongs to God and only God.

And finally, what seems to be quite consistent is that those who have left one particular theological 'system' for one that is antithetical to it, is that one tends to 'swing' too far the other way and thus unfortunately goes too far the other way. Semi-Pelagians converting to the Reformed Faith too often embrace hyper-Calvinism to some degree. Baptists who become Paedobaptists more often than not embrace presumptive regeneration or even baptismal regeneration. While Paedobaptists who go over to Credobaptism tend to fall into Sandemanianism and assure 5 year old children whose Sunday School teacher led them in the "Sinner's Prayer" and they profess that they "Asked Jesus into their hearts" that they infallibly saved.

QUESTION: Is it possible that you are over-reacting against the false teachings of hyper-Calvinism in wanting to defend that God loves all men, albeit in different ways? IF the matter of difference between us is simply semantics, then does it really matter if I believe it to be wiser to speak of the benevolence, kindness, goodness of God vs. the love of God for all men?