Does God So Love the World? (John MacArthur)

Love is the best known but least understood of all God's attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.

All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but not in the way most people think. Because of the influence of modern liberal theology, many suppose that God's love and goodness ultimately nullify His righteousness, justice, and holy wrath. They envision God as a benign heavenly grandfather-tolerant, affable, lenient, permissive, devoid of any real displeasure over sin, who without consideration of His holiness will benignly pass over sin and accept people as they are.

Liberal thinking about God's love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God's wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.

We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God's righteous anger. We need to remember that God's wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.

In that regard, our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don't really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, few people really understand what God's love is all about.

How we address the misconception of the present age is crucial. We must not respond to an overemphasis on divine love by denying that God is love. Our generation's imbalanced view of God cannot be corrected by an equal imbalance in the opposite direction, a very real danger in some circles. I'm deeply concerned about a growing trend I've noticed-particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God's sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.

I am troubled by the tendency of some-often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine-who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.

The argument inevitably goes like this: Psalm 7:11 tells us "God is angry with the wicked every day." It seems reasonable to assume that if God loved everyone, He would have chosen everyone unto salvation. Therefore, God does not love the non-elect. Those who hold this view often go to great lengths to argue that John 3:16 cannot really mean God loves the whole world.

Perhaps the best-known argument for this view is found the unabridged edition of an otherwise excellent book, The Sovereignty of God, by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." [1] He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world…") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"[2]

Pink was attempting to make the crucial point that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally. Scripture teaches us that God loves because He chooses to love (Deuteronomy 7:6-7), because He is loving (God is love, 1 John 4:8), not because He is under some obligation to love everyone the same.

Nothing but God's own sovereign good pleasure compels Him to love sinners. Nothing but His own sovereign will governs His love. That has to be true, since there is certainly nothing in any sinner worthy of even the smallest degree of divine love.

Unfortunately, Pink took the corollary too far. The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.

We must understand that it is God's very nature to love. The reason our Lord commanded us to love our enemies is "in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). Jesus clearly characterized His Father as One who loves even those who purposefully set themselves at enmity against Him.

At this point, however, an important distinction must be made: God loves believers with a particular love. God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election (Ephesians 2:4). Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.

But from that, it does not follow that God's attitude toward those He did not elect must be unmitigated hatred. Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.

Reformed theology has historically been the branch of evangelicalism most strongly committed to the sovereignty of God. At the same time, the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." [3]

Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity.

We are seeing today, in some circles, an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan eras. I'm very encouraged by that in most respects. A return to those historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.

We must maintain a carefully balanced perspective as we pursue our study of God's love. God's love cannot be isolated from His wrath and vice versa. Nor are His love and wrath in opposition to each other like some mystical yin-yang principle. Both attributes are constant, perfect, without ebb or flow. His wrath coexists with His love; therefore, the two never contradict. Such are the perfections of God that we can never begin to comprehend these things. Above all, we must not set them against one another, as if there were somehow a discrepancy in God.

Both God's wrath and His love work to the same ultimate end-His glory. God is glorified in the condemnation of the wicked; He is glorified in every expression of love for all people without exception; and He is glorified in the particular love He manifests in saving His people.

Expressions of wrath and expressions of love-all are necessary to display God's full glory. We must never ignore any aspect of His character, nor magnify one to the exclusion of another. When we commit those errors, we throw off the biblical balance, distort the true nature of God, and diminish His real glory.

Does God so love the world? Emphatically-yes! Proclaim that truth far and wide, and do so against the backdrop of God's perfect wrath that awaits everyone who does not repent and turn to Christ.

Does the love of God differ in the breadth and depth and manner of its expression? Yes it does. Praise Him for the many manifestations of His love, especially toward the non-elect, and rejoice in the particular manifestation of His saving love for you who believe. God has chosen to display in you the glory of His redeeming grace.

[3]John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, William Pringle, trans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 reprint), 123.

It's not just "young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine".

"We must never ignore any aspect of His character, nor magnify one to the exclusion of another. "

Since the baby boom generation has discarded the concept of holiness, many think of God as little more than Santa Claus for grown-ups ("...he sees you when you're sleeping... he knows if you've been bad or good..."). Toss in some Darwinism taught as proven fact in all public schools, and what was once the foundation of our civilization is now scoffed at as childish superstition. Problem is, the society we're living in now is built almost entirely on sand.

Methinks we'll be seeing the wrath of God again very soon.

I am glad to hear this from John MacArthur. I think he pretty well holds his ground on God's sovereignty, too, keeping him true to his calvinistic roots.

I'm deeply concerned about a growing trend I've noticed-particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God's sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.
I am troubled by the tendency of some-often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine-who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.

God can love the "world," save the believers, and judge the unbelievers.

There are many aspects of God's Love toward His Creation. I think MacArthur strikes an important balance between the over-emphasis of God's Love above all His other attributes, and the tendency of some to limit that Love in ways that are clearly not in keeping with scripture. Both extremes are equally guilty of mis-stating God's Love and Wrath. It is unfortunate that some see this only as a way to take another pot-shot at those who embrace Reformed doctrines.

I am one who upholds "God as Love" as a scriptural indicator of God's central characteristic. However, I see nothing in MacArthur's article that I would disagree with. (Note that I'm not speaking of our calvinist differences here.) His wrath, his choices, his sovereignty, etc. will never contradict his love (and vice versa.)

The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God's attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that those mercies flow out of God's boundless love? It is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.

Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.

I will agree that the offer of mercy to the reprobate and his call of the gospel to all who hear are sincere expressions of God's love, but only if the offer is sincere. In order to make the offer sincere, God must grant to all to whom the offer is extended the ABILITY to respond to that offer. Otherwise the offer is illusory. If the offer of salvation is illusory, then the expression of love is equally illusory.

So what exactly is MacArthur trying to say?

What does ability have to do with the sincerity of an offer? I don't see how the two are linked. The offer is the offer irrespective of anyone's ability.

Otherwise the offer is illusory. If the offer of salvation is illusory, then the expression of love is equally illusory.

That's true only if you accept the premise that sincerity depends on ability. A premise I have yet to see proven so I don't accept it.

He is on the horns of the absolute foreknowledge dilemma.

Yet, we, too, are confronted by that same dilemma. If God foreknew those who would fail and be destroyed, then from the beginning He knew those on whom His love would ABIDE and REMAIN. From the beginning God knew of the fall and of His plan to offer Christ as the remedy for sin, and this was before the sin ever took place.

Our answer is that those who received the fullness of His love were worth it to Him. That all the lostness truly caused our Lord grief, but that the promise of those who received His abiding love made it all worth while.

The offer is the offer irrespective of anyone's ability.

I can't help but notice that you did not address how that offer is an expression of Love toward the reprobate. If the offer is illusory, if the recipient of the offer cannot accept it and the offeror knows that when the offer is made, then the offer is illusory. If the offer is illusory, then the expression of love that the offer represents is also illusory.

MacArthur wants it both ways. He wants to pretend that God loves the reprobate and expresses that love by offering him salvation, while at the same time he knows that God never intended that the person hear the offer and made the offer in such a way that the person could not hear it.

"However, I see nothing in MacArthur's article that I would disagree with."

"The gist of his argument is certainly valid: It is folly to think that God loves all alike, or that He is compelled by some rule of fairness to love everyone equally."

I'm a little surprise that you would agree with the above statement. Quite frankly I'm not sure I agree with the above statement.

There are many who would argue that God loves everyone equally and that He sent His Son to save them. There are others who would argue that God has created some for destruction and some for His glory for whatever reason. In my mind these two opposing views are easier to reconciled with the many verses that God does not show partiality (Eph 6:9, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, etc.) than to say that God loves everyone but not equally.

Somehow I think MacArthur is off base on this one or I'm missing the point.

God foreknew who would be damned.

Therefore, he does not "love all alike." While His love for all is sincere, it is different in that He knows who will remain in Him. I imagine that one difference for those who are lost is that it is a grief-filled love.

Nor do I think God is "compelled by some rule of fairness." I do not think God is bound by a set of "rules." I think that God's nature determines His actions, and that His actions are free (those of a free being.)

What does ability have to do with the sincerity of an offer? I don't see how the two are linked. The offer is the offer irrespective of anyone's ability.

I agree. Pelagius' main objection was that the command to obey implies the ability to obey. While the natural ability exists, the moral ability does not by virtue of the complete lack of desire to obey. They could obey if they wanted to, but they don't want to and will not want to apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

That's true only if you accept the premise that sincerity depends on ability. A premise I have yet to see proven so I don't accept it.

A good point. If ability is necessarily a part of sincerity, then God was insincere in commanding us to keep the whole Law since none of us have the ability to do so.

I will say that I do agree with MacArthur insofar as there is a tendency to run from the smarmy, lovesick-teenager God to the opposite extreme of God having no love whatsoever in any form or fashion for the reprobate. All men are the image-bearers of God (even though that image be corrupt) and have inherent worth as His creation. I believe grace to be a measure of love, and as such God shows His love to all men in the grace poured out indescriminately upon them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.