A God of love?
I’m on a quest, a quest to understand how a God who 1) hates humanity (save the elect), 2) loves a few people and 3) damns the rest can be considered a “God of love”. This is how I’ve had the doctrine of predestination explained to me (at least, how it operates within Calvinism). And well… I just can’t see it. This is my central question, and so far I’ve been met with “don’t question God” (i.e. Romans 9:20). So, I suppose I’ve been given something to write about! Probably tomorrow 
Related posts:
- Love Your Neighbour?
- Some Thoughts on Love Wins
- Love is complete acceptance?
- Agape: An Unearned Love
- C.S. Lewis on the cost of love, and avoiding God.
Hey Xel, I think you have it wrong. In Reformed theology God doesn’t hate humanity, He loves them. He created all of us for our benefit, not His. God ‘makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust’ (Mat. 5:45). We call this ‘common grace’ as opposed to ‘special grace’. God loves everybody, but His saving love isn’t bestowed on everybody. God, according to His perfect will, chooses to save a people for Himself. If you don’t have a problem with God only choosing Israel among the nations, then why the problem with God only choosing His elect among humanity?
That’s the problem, everyone has their own version of “Reformed theology,” hence the questions. I have no problem with God choosing Israel because as I understand it, it was (is?) through Israel that God would bless all nations (it wasn’t simply that God was choosing Israel, and everyone else was out of luck). My problem (or at least so far as it goes, if it’s not a misconception) with God choosing only the elect, is that as I understand it, God does not give everyone the choice to accept or reject Christ.
Yes, God chose Israel so that through them He would bless all nations, but it’s not like all nations (or rather people in those nations) will be saved. You still have to deal with the particularism here. Why didn’t God just go ahead and bless all nations at the start? And even on your theology God does not give everyone the choice to accept or reject Christ. What about people who’ve never heard of Christ? I don’t think for God to be a God of love He has to give every single person who’s ever lived an equal shot of accepting or rejecting His Son. God’s love is a sovereign love.
My concern isn’t that God has chosen a particular people (or persons), it’s that he’s damned (as I understand it) particular people, or persons, while not giving them the opportunity, or ability, to be saved. If I stuck with a Molinist answer, “my theology” would hold that God foreknew who would and would not accept Him, and those He knew who would not accept Him, well, they are the people who live lives never hearing of Him. I don’t know if I necessarily like that answer, but it seems a possible — if not “out there” — answer. On more dangerous, speculative grounds, would be a situation similar to what Lewis described in “The Last Battle,” with the character Emeth. In any case, I believe that for God to be a God of love, then He would have to give every single person who lived the ability to accept or reject Him.
By the way. what does “God’s love is a sovereign love” actually mean in a practical sense?
Yeah, I think that William Lane Craig answer is really ‘out there’, but if you’re comfortable with it, that’s fine. I’m comfortable with God being completely sovereign so that His saving love is particular to His elect. That’s what I mean when I say God’s love is a sovereign love. It’s been nice discussing this with you, by the way.
I knew something like this would come up on this blog after seeing your (many) objections to Calvinism on Bible Forums =)
Hi Jeremy, I enjoyed bumping into your blog on the web and enjoyed reading your posts. Both Calvin and Luther proposed that “after the Fall” “freewill” was “just a word.” So “after the fall,” God DOES “hate” everybody. At least per Luther and Calvin. See also “A Primer for Young Calvinists” http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/calvinist.html and my own story concerning Calvinism (and other versions of Christianity) http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/babinski_agnosticism.html In the end I had more questions than answers.
Thank you for the comment, Ed
There is a lot more research I need to do in this area; since writing this I’ve learned that at least (Blaise) Pascal had great difficulty in this area, especially concerning children (much like Ivan Karamazov).
I’ve noticed that you have an infidels profile, do you mind if I ask your position on Christianity in general?
Yes, I read the quotations from Pascal on Calvinism. You could multiply them by a thousand from other non-Calvinist Christians throughout history. Christians have been debunking each others interpretations of the Scriptures since there WERE “Scriptures.” My view on Christianity is told in my online testimony. Click on the link above. That should explain all or nearly all. I’m agnostic, some days more mystical and theistic than others. Some less so. I’m also a contributor to The Christian Delusion. Triabloguers apparently think that “Hebrew cosmology” is just something “Babinski” made up. Have you visited the BIOLOGOS website in that regard? Theistic evolutionists are getting their stuff together on the web. Nice to see that finally.
Also, on infant damnation, certainly Calvin and Jonathan Edwards endorsed and defended the view. Unbaptized infants were not deserving of eternal life, not among the elect. I mean just look, they died before they could even be baptized. And it was GOD’S WILL that it happened that way. Edwards even compared infants to vipers, but not having the strength to kill people since babies are weak.
Now I feel somewhat embarrassed, I should have noticed that you authored chapter 5 of “The Christian Delusion”. A bit of an admission — as I figure my recent post led you here — I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the book, too poor for the time being. But to answer your question, I haven’t visited the Biologos forum in quite some time, what specifically are you referring to?
As I’m still reading into Calvin and Edwards, I really can’t comment much on their views. I would agree, I’m sure with many, that the idea of infant damnation is disgusting and repulsive, and the implications of asking “is it true?” are quite far-reaching.
I haven’t read Calvin in great detail, but just looking around on the net, I’d be careful in saying that Calvin believed all infants that die are damned to hell. Even if he did, it’s not a universally held belief among Calvinists. Most would not hold to infant damnation.
To turn the tables, if salvation depends upon a person’s rational choice to put their faith in Christ, how can an infant do such a thing? Are they automatically assumed into heaven because of ‘innocence’?
Hi BrckBrin, the doctrine of infant damnation has a long and prestigious Christian pedigree among both Catholics and Calvinists, til many Catholics and Calvinists changed their tune in the 1800s I think.
As for salvation depending on a person’s rational choice, I agree infants don’t have such an ability. But Calvinists don’t believe in reasoning or rational choice either, they believe in grace, God’s unearned favor, bestowed on the elect.
Hi Jeremy, You might be able to read my chapter, The Cosmology of the Bible, while sitting in a large bookstore, or via the amazon.com “Look Inside” feature if you login to amazon.com. I could even mail you a copy, at least of my chapter.
Hey Ed, I’ve tried looking at Amazon, however, it doesn’t appear that the “Look Inside” feature allows me to view more than the first few pages of the introduction (perhaps a consequence of where I’m accessing Amazon from). A large bookstore is also out of the option, as I live in a rather small (*very small*) town in Northern Quebec. But if you could get me a copy, even if just a copy of your chapter, that would be great.
I can certainly get you a copy. Send me your address.
Will do — thank you