Does God Love Whom He Does Not Save?
October 3rd, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
I realize that most of our readers will have no objection whatsoever to the idea that God’s love is universal. Most of us were weaned on this notion, being taught as children to sing songs like, “Jesus loves the little children; all the children of the world.” Many may never even have encountered anyone who denies that God’s love is universal.
Yet if I might take a moment to dwell on this issue, it is because I want to acknowledge that it poses a perplexing difficulty for other aspects of God’s revealed truth. Let us honestly admit that on the face of it, the universal love of God is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of election.
Election is a biblical doctrine, affirmed with the utmost clarity from beginning to end in Scripture. The highest expression of divine love to sinful humanity is seen in the fact that God set His love on certain undeserving sinners and chose them for salvation before the foundation of the world. There is a proper sense in which God’s love for His own is a unique, special, particular love determined to save them at all costs.
It is also true that when Scripture speaks of divine love, the focus is usually on God’s eternal love toward the elect. God’s love for mankind reaches fruition in the election of those whom He saves. And not every aspect of divine love is extended to all sinners without exception. Otherwise, all would be elect, and all would ultimately be saved. But Scripture clearly teaches that many will not be saved (Matt. 7:22–23). Can God sincerely love those whom He does not intervene to save?
British Baptist leader Erroll Hulse, dealing with this very question, has written,
How can we say God loves all men when the psalms tell us He hates the worker of iniquity (Ps. 5:5)? How can we maintain that God loves all when Paul says that He bears the objects of His wrath, being fitted for destruction, with great patience (Rom. 9:22)? Even more how can we possibly accept that God loves all men without exception when we survey the acts of God’s wrath in history? Think of the deluge which destroyed all but one family. Think of Sodom and Gomorrah. With so specific a chapter as Romans [1,] which declares that sodomy is a sign of reprobation, could we possibly maintain that God loved the population of the two cities destroyed by fire? How can we possibly reconcile God’s love and His wrath? Would we deny the profundity of this problem? (Erroll Hulse, “The Love of God for All Mankind,” Reformation Today [Nov–Dec 1983], 18–19).
Yet Hulse realizes that if we take Scripture at face value, there is no escaping the conclusion that God’s love extends even to sinners whom He ultimately will condemn. “The will of God is expressed in unmistakable terms,” Hulse writes. “He has no pleasure in the destruction and punishment of the wicked” (Ez. 18:32; 33:11). Hulse also cites Matthew 23:37, where Jesus weeps over the city of Jerusalem, then says, “We are left in no doubt that the desire and will of God is for man’s highest good, that is his eternal salvation through heeding the gospel of Christ.” (Ibid., 21–22)
It is crucial that we accept the testimony of Scripture on this question, for as Hulse points out,
We will not be disposed to invite wayward transgressors to Christ, or reason with them, or bring to them the overtures of the gospel, unless we are convinced that God is favorably disposed to them. Only if we are genuinely persuaded that He will have them to be saved are we likely to make the effort. If God does not love them it is hardly likely that we will make it our business to love them. Especially is this the case when there is so much that is repulsive in the ungodliness and sinfulness of Christ-rejecters. (Ibid., 18)
Biblically, we cannot escape the conclusion that God’s benevolent, merciful love is unlimited in extent. He loves the whole world of humanity. This love extends to all people in all times. It is what Titus 3:4 refers to as “the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind.” God’s singular love for the elect quite simply does not rule out a universal love of sincere compassion—and a sincere desire on God’s part to see every sinner turn to Christ.
Mark 10 relates a familiar story that illustrates God’s love for the lost. It is the account of the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and began asking Him a great question: “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Scripture tells us:
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother’ ” (vv. 18–19).
Every aspect of Jesus’ reply was designed to confront the young man’s sin. Many people misunderstand the point of Jesus’ initial question: “Why do you call Me good?” Our Lord was not denying His own sinlessness or deity. Plenty of verses of Scripture affirm that Jesus was indeed sinless—“holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). He is therefore also God incarnate (Jn. 1:1). But Jesus’ reply to this young man had a twofold purpose: first, to underscore His own deity, confronting the young man with the reality of who He was; and second, to gently chide a brash young man who clearly thought of himself as good.
To stress this second point, Jesus quoted a section of the Decalogue. Had the young man been genuinely honest with himself, he would have had to admit that he had not kept the law perfectly. But instead, he responded confidently, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up” (v. 20). This was unbelievable impertinence on the young man’s part. It shows how little he understood of the demands of the law. Contrast his flippant response with how Peter reacted when he saw Christ for who He was. Peter fell on his face and said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (Lk. 5:8). This rich young ruler’s response fell at the other end of the spectrum. He was not even willing to admit he had sinned.
So Jesus gave him a second test: “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Mk. 10:21).
Sadly, the young man declined. Here were two things he refused to do: he would not acknowledge his sin, and he would not bow to Christ’s lordship. In other words, he shut himself off from the eternal life he seemed so earnestly to be seeking. As it turned out, there were things more important to him than eternal life, after all. His pride and his personal property took priority in his heart over the claims of Christ on his life. And so he turned away from the only true Source of the life he thought he was seeking.
That is the last we ever see of this man in the New Testament. As far as the biblical record is concerned, he remained in unbelief. But notice this significant phrase, tucked away in Mark 10:21: “Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him.” Here we are explicitly told that Jesus loved an overt, open, non-repentant, non-submissive Christ-rejector. He loved him.
(To be concluded tomorrow)
I think Jesus also hints, though, at this young rich man’s future salvation, for Jesus goes on to say how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God by saying it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples then ask how anyone can be saved, and Jesus replies by saying, “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” I think it’s entirely possible Jesus was hinting that this man would not (could not) be saved on his own, but that he could/would be saved by God.
Not dogmatic about it, but I think this very well could be a reference to the fact that this young man would be saved, and that’s why Jesus loved him.
I am also not denying the God does love the unregenerate in some way, just pointing out that I think there are indications in the text (by Jesus’ words) that this young ruler was eventually saved.
Hmmmm,
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed…this post would seem to say that God both loves and hates unrepentant sinners…
Do I have that correct?
I’m also a little confused at the statement: “God’s singular love for the elect quite simply does not rule out a universal love of sincere compassion—and a sincere desire on God’s part to see every sinner turn to Christ.”
Correct me if I’m wrong…if God sincerely wants to see every sinner come to Christ…then they will, will they not?
“and a sincere desire on God’s part to see every sinner turn to Christ.”
Amen. God takes no pleasure in condemning sinners. He is glorified in His righteous judgement, but to destroy man, who is created in His image, is not a pleasure. It’s as a righteous judge who sits at his bench, and a murder is standing before, and the evidence is indisputable that he murdered, and so the judge condemns him to hang by the neck until dead, and yet wishes he could pardon him, but he also must condemn this evil man.
God loves His elect. God loves the non-elect. God saves His elect. God judges the non-elect.
This love has to be two different loves. Perhaps we will never understand, but there it is.
I enjoyed this study, and look forward to the follow up.
If Jesus is hinting at the young ruler’s future salvation then the question becomes “how is he saved in the future?”
Is he saved some other way or does he have to come back to the point where Jesus brings him in this parable?
I think the point of the parable is this:
Matthew 16:24-28
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
I too think that Jesus loved this one who declined but the way to true salvation is self-denial, suffering, and obedience.
I think the Elect will always come to salvation this way and live the rest of their lives on earth this way.
So another thought is, “Does God’s love for the sinner preclude His righteous hate of the sinner?” That’s right, hate of the sinner… not just the sin. If I may, I’d suggest reading Justin Taylor’s post on this topic:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/09/love-sinner-hate-sin-love-sinner-hate.html
If that link for some reason doesn’t work, the date is 9/17/07. After reading JT’s post, what do you guys think?
(Nate et al., feel free to remove this post if this is too divergent.)
Maybe we are not looking at two distinctions of love but the intravention of Grace that the elect are brought into the family of God. It is by grace that we saved, not by love, (as the prime attribute.
Just a thought.
What I think is curious is that God, according to the Second Commandment, is jealous. But what is HE jealous about? Well, HE is jealous about the fact that the worship HE deserves is given to others. But why should HE be jealous? If they are not elect to worship Him, if they cannot worship Him because HE excluded them from worshipping Him, why on earth would that bother Him?
May be God doesn’t know what HE wants, or perhaps the “Calvinistic” understanding of election is incorrect. I think God knows what he wants.
Psalm 5:5 is pretty clear that He hates not only the sin, but also the sinner.
I think that we should view this subject from a biblical perspective i.e. let scripture explain scripture. In 1 Ki 22 we find an intriguing insight into the way things happen in heaven. Prior to this we read how Elijah was sent to tell Ahab of the end that God had in mind for him see 1Ki 21:17-29. Note particularly Ahab’s reaction and how God acted upon that.
But I want to draw your attention to 1 Ki 22:19-23. This clearly demonstrates that the will of God will be done by whatever means, including this example of a lying spirit. The question that we now have to consider is whether unbelievers are totally innocent of sin because they are not aware what sin is. The answer is found in Rom 1:16-25 and also confirmed in 2 Thes 2:8-12.
Joh 3:16 (ASV) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
God loves His creation but will punish sin with eternal death
“I think God knows what he wants.”
Amen, me to. And I believe He will purpose to have all that He wants, and nothing can stop Him. I’m a Calvinist BTW.
What’s love (gotta do with it)? Really, what’s love. The verb agapao, to love, is as broad as the noun, agape. It is a general love. The more active and directed love with intent and purpose which is self-denying is phileo. Jesus put it this way, “No man has greater agape than this, that he would lay his life down for his filos.
But, what is agape? It is a general term encompasing all forms and expression of love. Agape can mean to look upon, or act towards in a kind way. It does not mean, necessarily, to have an emotional attachment. It was a term used of people who entertain (agapeo) others. Throw a party, it is loving others.
This is not to deny the universal love of God for his creation. But, what is love? What are its attributes and manifestations? The problem that so many have in understanding and dividing between the application of the term is that we ‘lump’ it all together into a gooey mess.
The observation was made that a judge rendering a verdict is acting in propiety, rendering what is proper to the conditions of guilt. This is love, to do justice. It is also love to hate sin and to punish it. It is also love to show mercy.
Why is it so difficult for us to delineate the nuances of love? Perhaps it is because we have not learned it? We all speak of the differences. Does a man love a woman the same way he loves a stranger? Then why is it so hard to understand that there is a love for a friend that is different than the love for a bride to be? Ol Yeller we hated to see get shot, cuz we loved her. But, it was love that killed her. Freaky huh?
Does God love the sinner? Well yes, well no. He hates us so much that he killed us to the uttermost. Under the curse it was “you shall die and in dying you shall be utterly dead.” Then, he sent the Son because he loved us, and killed him because he hated our sin so much that it took the infinite love of God to be put to death to atone for the infinite hate he had for us in our sin. Hate is not the opposite of love, but one aspect of it. A judicial aspect that must act to defend the weak. Crazy as it seems, if God had not considered us his absolute enemies, and hated us as such, he would not have died for us. We have been put to death in Christ for our sin, a real judgement has been rendered. We died in him, because God hated our sin and our sin is us. It is who we are by nature.
God is not bound by love such that it has only one aspect, one emotion, one manifestation. We have such great freedom to love, as we in his image were created to. Love is a many splendored, many faceted jewel of expression. Yet, we bind God to finiteness in his expression. The infinite God, how many ways does he love? Hmm
Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated. Sure God hates those He doesn’t choose. If He loves them He will give them to Jesus for saving. I just don’t see God loving someone in Hell for eternity. If Mark says Jesus loved the rich young ruler then perhaps God gives him to Jesus at a later point untold to us in scripture. On second thought in this Mark 10 passage- is Jesus mocking this poor and common clay vessel that was marked out for unnoble purposes? I mean wouldn’t it be great if the rich young ruler said to Jesus ‘how can I sell my goods I have not yet received regeneration from your father yet’. But yet so we see at the end of Jesus’ message to his disciples in v.27 “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.” And so I gather that Jesus was either mocking this sinner to demonstrate to his disciples of this mans natural programming (if you will), outside of Gods help or that simply Jesus did receive this ruler (later on) from God for blood cleansing salvation.
“Brian @ voiceofthesheep” wrote: “I think Jesus also hints, though, at this young rich man’s future salvation, for Jesus goes on to say how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God by saying it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples then ask how anyone can be saved, and Jesus replies by saying, ‘with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’ I think it’s entirely possible Jesus was hinting that this man would not (could not) be saved on his own, but that he could/would be saved by God.”
It’s interesting that Brian writes this. Brian, if you continue on the same track with the same context, Jesus also says in the Matt 19 account that they will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel and also that the last are first. This is only a hunch, but Saul of Tarsus fits this description. He becomes the last one to be one of the twelve and is first among the apostles in the epistles.
Jesus listed 5 of the 6 commands from the second table, purposely leaving out the command against coveting. This was his greatest shortfall which is why Jesus told him to sell everything.
I think “donsands” had it correct. There are two types of love of God, just as we as humans have types of love. I love my wife with a different love than I love friends of mine that are women. I love her with a covenantal love as expressed in Ephesians 5. There I am told to love my wife as Christ loves the church and gave Himself up for her. Here is a clear distinction in covenantal love vs. general love for others.
Also, I see it time and again with Arminians who love to try to prove general atonement and that is to quote Matthew 23:37. Nowhere in that passage does it say Jesus wept, first of all. Second, this passage is dealing with the hardness of the Jewish leaderships’ hearts, not a verse dealing with salvation. I am surprised at Dr. McArthur’s misinterpretation, if in fact he is agreeing with that particular interpretation.
Soli Deo Gloria
Those who imagine that God cannot love a sinner and simultaneously hate him in wrath must then explain how God could love the elect from eternity while they were “children of wrath by nature” before conversion.
Vince,
God wants people to go to hell. That’s the Calvinist view. In fact He wants most people to go to hell or else He’s have it otherwise. What’s the alternative? Man gets to decide and that’s anathema with this crowd.
David,
Your view of calvinists is quite the exraordinary one. I think you know that no calvinist realy thinks this way. In fact the bible says that God is not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance. I think you also know that not everyone will be saved in the end. God is in control of everything (even salvation) but this does not mean that He enjoys sending people to hell; but we know that He will.
this has been a subject that has come up often in my years as a youth pastor. frequently students have asked me this question. i always struggled with exactly how to answer.
then i became a father. and i beleive i can say that on some level i c an understand the concept.
i love the kids in my youth group. i sacrifice for them nearly daily. i spend hours in prayer, tears and counseling with them. i work hard to help them grow in understanding, knowledge & love for the Lord. i believe that if it came to it i would lay down my life for the kids in my group. that are precious to me.
but my son…he is a whole other level. its not even comparable. when my son was first born there was concern about his health – my immediate thought was, “if he needs my heart, take it.” now this was a silly conclusion and unrealistic at best but nonetheless to this day the same thought resonates within me. i have no question what i would do to save my son. my life is of no account to me in regards to his.
so while i love the kids in my youth group and put a huge amount of effort toward them and their growth it pales in comparison to the love for my own child.
therein i find the answer to the question. i would imagine most fathers identify.
we, elect, are called the children of God. the unsaved are called the children of wrath and are coupled with Satan himself (eph2 for example). so while God certainly loves the unsaved the divide is massive.
he loves us to the extent that His own son was given to save us. wow.
Brian,
All I have to say to your post is a whole-hearted Amen!
Good grief people, the question is -does God love the ones whom he does not save? (has not saved, has appointed for wrath) Of course we know that God loves whom he WILL save, but what about the ones whom He will NOT save (in Hell)?
Phil He loves them but seperately and differently than the elect. Brian’s story is trying to just give an example of the varying degrees/types of love that are present in us, far less beings thand God.
It is possible to love and hate a soul, as God “hatest all workers of iniquity” (Ps. 5:5), yet has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked: but that the wicked turn from his way and live” Ezek. 33:11). Likewise we must “of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jude 1:22-23).
As regards Calvinism, while i see the essence of Calvinism taught in Rm. 9-11, the problem, which Paul anticipates, is that of reconciling the apparent conclusions of Calvinism with God’s declarations of jurisprudence. For if souls who are born with the Adamic nature and are thus “carnal, sold unto sin” (Rm. 7:14) are never given grace to repent, then they are ultimately damned due to Adam’s sin. And while children realize effects of their parents actions, whether they be good or evil, the final judgment is based upon what they personally did (Rv. 20:12, 13). Yet God states that He will not punish the children for their father’s iniquity (Dt. 24:16; 2Kg. 41:6; Jer. 31:29, 20).
Outside of the essential Arminian position, in which Jesus calls and draws all souls to Himself (Jn. 12:32; Mt. 22:14) in prevenient grace, and who commands all souls to repent (Acts 17:30), and thus all lost are fully culpable for rejecting Christ, it would appear that the aforementioned dilemma can be reconciled by making every soul culpable for Adam’s sin. But as Moses asked, “shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation” (Num. 16:22). The answer is that God can do whatsoever He pleaseth, and while what Rm. 9 describes may appear unjust (just as requiring “all” to always mean the elect as needed), we can be assured that God will be justified in all that He speaketh, and that “the judgment of God is [and will be] according to truth against them which commit such things” (Rm. 2:2) such as violate His laws and deny Christ. Meanwhile, God judges souls when intercessors fail them (Ezek. 2:30), and to his glory we must generally seek to preach the gospel to every creature (and as God draw us specifically to some), as if they are fully responsible to repent as God commands, by His grace.
However, it is sad to see a good man like McArthur lately requiring everyone must acquiesce to what i see as the torture logic of Limited Atonement, as if the refusal of most to come to the prepared banquet (Mt. 22:1-14) somehow makes the latter insufficient, and attributes deficiency to the host. The atonement offered for Israel under Moses was offered for all (Lk. 15:34), but was only efficacious for those who believed. I do not see the “L” in TULIP as required in Calvinism.
Of course God loves everyone, saved or lost. The question is why does His “love” for the non-elect elicit not even an manifested “offer” of redemption as an expressive proof of that Love? He loves the elect and redeems them, He loves the non-elect and will not even extend a token offer. It that case it does’t matter to the non-elect whether God loves them or not, God’s manifestation of that assumed love is no different than that of a tree. Benign.
I’m not sure what of love that represents.
It may seem simplistic but is not God’s love demonstrated in the beauty of the fall season, the air we all breath, the cool water that refreshs each of us, the sustenance of our life? And on and on… If each of us receive from God what we deserve wouldn’t all receive wrath. He has elected some to demonstrate his glory not to demonstrate solely his love but his mercy to receive glory for himself as he will from his redeemed saints in heaven. There is nothing we the elect has done to deserve or earn our election it is a free gift from God!! Our minds soaked with sin tend to believe the word “LOVE” and apply the sin soaked version of interruptation.
Well said Bob.
One thing that I think is important is that we do not love all people in the same way. We do not love our friends the same way I love my mother or the way a man loves his wife (or at least he better not). I think it is important to realize that God also is able to love the whole world in a general since, while only loving the elect in a salvific since. I think that John 3:16 is a good passage to consider. It tells that God loved the whole world, but that only those who believe will be saved.
We cannot require God to love every person the exact same way, when we do not love everyone the same way. This would require that there be no eternal judgement of the wicked.
Although God does not save everyone, He requires His saints love there neighobrs. I see this as a way for God to extend His love to all people, as well as His own glory. At the judgement no man will be without excuse.
Great article!
Grace and peace,
Robert Wiesner
The Love Of God…
Picked up from Challies.com, I’ve just stumbled on John MacArthur’s blog and a recent two-part series of his in which he discusses the love of God.
The entries are:
Does God Love Whom He Does Not Save?
God’s Love For Those Neve…
What do y’all think about Christian Universalism as a way to reconcile the love/ hate of God. Have you read anything about that?
First of all,every person coming into the world is a total sinner.in that regard nobody should be or deseverses salvation. But we know that JESUS is a loving merciful God who is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to a saving knowledge of HIS grace 2 peter chap 3 ver 9.The BIBLE also teaches that HE JESUS not only died for our sins but the sins of the whole world, now note in the text the word “OUR” means CHRISTIANS, so if the writer is saying that not only “OUR” but the “WORLD” that means that there is no favoritism or partiality.For we know that GOD is no RESPECTER of persons.1John2:2 and ACTS10:34 The BIBLE also says in John3:16 for GOD so loved the “WORLD”that HE gave HIS only begotten SON that “WHOSOEVER” believeth on HIM should not perish but have everlasting life.Then JESUS went a step further and said that HIS FATHER didnt send JESUS to condem the “WORLD” but that the “WORLD” through JESUS might be saved.The BIBLE also says the day you hear HIS voice “HARDEN”not your heart.Which means if JESUS is telling you not to do it then obviously you can,not GOD but YOUUUUUUU.I hate it when people get alittle bit of scripture and try to build a doctrin of there own.The fact is that JESUS will save anyone who will come to HIM in true faith,and that is the will of the FATHER that we will come to the SON and be saved.I think that we sometimes spend to much time and energy on things that are not going to make us more productive christians.We should spend more time spreading the GOSPEL and let GOD give the increase,not trying to figure out who is going to be saved and who is not.We need to make our calling and “ELECTIION”sure.Check ourselves daily to see if WE,not somebody else, is growing in the grace and knowledge of the LORD lest we deseive ourselves and not be saved at all.