Love ali | 07 Jan 2007 02:49 pm
Love for Sinners?
Comment is being made about a video gospel presentation by a Pastor Francis Chan. I haven’t seen it - we are still working with Windows 98 (shameful, I know) and so can’t view it, but Michael Spencer, aka Imonk, has a summary of the content and the problems some people have with it (and a response). [Update: Have just been told by Mr. Dos that I can download an earlier version of QuickTime and watch it with that. Thanks again, Glenn].
In essence, some Calvinist and/or Reformed believers out there in cyberspace have a problem with saying, “God loves everyone, does not want anyone to go to hell and so invites (commands) repentance and faith in Jesus so they can be saved”. Instead, they say, “God is angry with the world and saving people from hell is about His own glory and is done completely without regard to any decision or response on our part”.
To this we should reply: Just because God is angry at sinners does not mean he does not also love them or want us to tell them of His love (seen in His provision) or require response.
But the issue led me to another point. Lesser love can act like hate.
One of the still incomplete series of short posts I have been writing has been exploring the relationship between love and glory (Love and glory - different or the same?, Love and glory - Is love inspired by glory?, Love and glory - Then what is love inspired by?, Love and glory - Does love lead to glory?). A yet “unposted post” looks at degrees of love. The basic idea is that lesser love can act like hate in light of a greater love.
Here’s a simple example: a man will (ideally!) love his wife more than other women, but this does not mean he has no (brotherly - again, ideally!) love for other women. Yet, in a situation where he is to glorify his wife (eg. praise his wife’s person), he will deliberately downplay or ignore other women in the process. He will help his wife achieve her goals before - and even at the expense of - helping other women. In a crisis, he will choose to care for his wife before other women. But none of these things means he hates other women. And if helping another woman will ultimately demonstrate His wife’s worth even more he will do that also.
God is love. His very essence and being is love. But He loves His Son more than any other human. Choosing some and not others is for His Son’s (and ultimately His Own) glory, but this does not mean He does not love everyone and want them to avoid hell. Rather, it illustrates that He loves Himself and His Son to a greater degree. (To those unfamiliar with Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine, saying God “loves Himself…to a greater degree” could be a problem - just accepting that He loves His Son to a greater degree would be enough to complete the illustration).
This, of course, could lead to the minimising of God’s love for mankind as many seem eager to do. But how minimal can a love be that causes God to cry out to people to repent or to compare Himself to a hen wanting to gather her chicks under her wing (referring to rebellious never-to-be-saved Jews)? The truth is that God’s love for people is greater than anything we can imagine - and the greater we understand that love to be, God’s love for His Son is seen to be greater still and the cross becomes an even brighter display of His glory.
Indeed, we can say this to those within the Calvinist/Reformed tradition who are concerned about Francis Chan’s statements : If you minimise God’s love for all people, you are also guilty of minimising His glory.
One of the last paragraphs in Imonk’s post hits it on the head:
on 08 Jan 2007 at 6:31 am 1.internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » Passive or Passionate?: Francis Chan and the God of the Gospel Offer said …
[...] UPDATE: Kiwi and an Emu has some thoughts. [...]
on 08 Jan 2007 at 8:53 am 2.Jeff said …
I’m glad you critique the argument of God having degrees of love. Even if this were true, it is not revealed to us, so, as things stand, that explanation is merely a poor human explanation of divine mystery.
The fact that any of us are allowed to live another moment is proof of God’s boundless compassion and baffling love.
God’s love is so boundless that, some say, it accompanies sinners even in hell. Here’s a quote from Isaac of Nineveh, a seventh-century Christian:
“As for me, I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. … Those who feel that they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. … It is absurd to suppose tht sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love … is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion — remorse.”
Whether we ultimately agree or not with Isaac’s opinion as it is quoted here, it remains a dramatic concept of God’s unfathomable love. God has revealed to us his love. Who are we to question it?
–Jeff
on 08 Jan 2007 at 10:14 am 3.One Salient Oversight said …
I’m commenting here about this article
on 09 Jan 2007 at 9:03 am 4.ali said …
Great quote Jeff, though, as you say, who are we to know? Theologically, being outside of time, God never changes, so the love He has now for never-to-be-saved sinners I think will remain, though I’m not sure I agree with Isaac that those in hell will be able to recognise it in His wrath.
I also don’t necessarily throw out the idea that there are degrees of love for humans…though I have no definite opinion on that right now. It doesn’t, of course, affect what I say above.
on 09 Jan 2007 at 7:05 pm 5.Jeff said …
I’m not sure whether those in Hell will recognize God’s love either, but it’s possible that this love will become clear to them as they are judged by God, and it is then that they will realize what a marvelously extravagant and beautiful gift of love they have spurned, and, as a result, they might even, full of regret, acknowledge the justice of the wrath they receive.
Just writing this sends a shiver down my back. I think it was Isaac of Nineveh who also said we should not talk about whether other people are or are not going to Hell, only about whether we ourselves are or are not going there.
As for degrees of God’s love, I suppose I don’t automatically reject it, either. I just think it’s not something given to us to know, and the very concept seems automatically to be used by humans in sinister ways meant to deprive some people of God’s love. In any case, even the smallest fraction of God’s capacity for love would be an infinite amount of love, surely enough to satisfy me for eternity.
–Jeff
on 09 Jan 2007 at 7:44 pm 6.ali said …
What really blesses me - and blows my mind if I think on it too long - is that we will grasp more and more of God’s love through time without end. That’s awesome because I know, like you, just a fraction would be more than enough to satisfy. I guess He’ll just increase our capacity to receive His love as we go on!
on 10 Jan 2007 at 6:46 am 7.Jeff said …
Amen. God is truly inexhaustible!
on 13 Jan 2007 at 6:53 am 8.Greg McR said …
“…if our theology has brought us to the point that we are careful to not speak too extravagantly about the love of God, something is seriously wrong. If we can read the Prodigal Son or the woman at the well and not see the passionate Lover of our souls, we’ve simply gone too deeply into our own theological mazes.”
Too bad you could not work it out so that violins would play when you passed the cursor over the above quote. I think it misrepresents most of the true objections that I have seen voiced, namely that Chan’s video presents an largely unbalanced and man centered presentation of the love of God, the purpose of the Law, and the Cross. Starting with a gushing and emotional presentation of the love of God while downplaying the language and consequences of sin and death and Hell, is not a balanced presentation of the Gospel. He even apologized for just mentioning the bible. He does talk briefly about judgment so I have to say it was not as bad as some presentations that I have seen, but it is not the kind of thing I would point a friend in need of a clear gospel message to.
on 13 Jan 2007 at 1:39 pm 9.ali said …
Greg
Couldn’t find the violin music - all I had was a recording of oboes and I didn’t think that’d work.
Seriously, though, are you commenting on Imonk’s paragraph or my post? If Imonk’s paragraph, he does deal with the other “unbalanced, man-centred” objections, though he does seem to think our understanding of the love of God is fundamental. If my post, I think it fairly clear that while I briefly summarise the main problems some people have with Chan’s presentation, I am concentrating on objections to telling non-Christians that God loves them, and even the objection some have to the idea that God loves the non-elect at all. These concerns are pretty explicit in the objections I have seen voiced and could almost be considered the initial concern answered by Frank Turk.
But as for the wider concerns over imbalance and man-centredness, I appreciate them. Having said that, my extra-keen attitude sensors tell me that our conclusions will not be the same. I do not think biblically that the gospel is preached one way all the time; to the Greeks, the Jews, 21st Century Westerners the same gospel truths are presented differently. I do not agree that the presentation is biblically unbalanced (though it might be unbalanced from the standpoint of a theological system). I agree Chan’s presentation looks at the gospel from a human standpoint, but to emphasise that people are sinners, under judgment and deserving of hell is presenting truth from a human standpoint as well - it’s just not good news and can be just as unbalanced.
If you don’t want to use Chan’s presentation and instead use something else - fine. I trust God will cover us both with His grace and use whatever flawed materials or methods or words we do choose to bring people to Himself regardless.
on 13 Jan 2007 at 7:23 pm 10.Jeff said …
It’s interesting that, for some people, “man-centered” automatically means “wrong” in any context. Just because a particular Gospel presentation has man-centered statements doesn’t mean it entirely neglects God’s sovereignty. Nor does it mean a new convert’s entire spiritual formation is necessarily going to be man-centered. There are some valid human perspectives to the gospel. If that’s all anybody ever taught, sure, it would be misuse of the Gospel. But that doesn’t preclude using the human perspective, especially when dealing with people who know next to nothing about the Gospel.
–Jeff
on 23 Dec 2007 at 8:26 am 11.Mitch said …
http://currentdayreformation.blogspot.com/2007/12/just-stop-and-think.html
I disagree…