![]() Thinking and Speaking BiblicallyaboutThe Love of God for ManPart TwoPart 2: Speaking Biblically1 On a Christian radio station, a speaker recently declared:
Messages like this are not hard to find these days. People are inundated with images of God's love that picture Him in heaven, longingly looking down at the human race and wringing His hands, hoping every single person will realize just how much He loves them and how desperately He wants them to love Him. In keeping with this way of thinking, a very popular author writes:
You could easily find yourself feeling sorry for God if He is accurately represented by that quote. You might even get the impression that He has a self-esteem problem and would feel better about Himself if only some of His creatures would love Him. And then it must be assumed that God will spend eternity pondering the masses of people suffering in hell as He wonders, "Why didn't they choose Me?" Many who read this paper will recoil at that example. Most would never knowingly represent God in such a degrading manner. But almost everyone would agree that a very common appeal in modern evangelism is the love of God for man. "God loves you!" preachers passionately proclaim to their audiences, many of whom are unconverted. "He loves you so much that He wants you to turn from your sin and trust in Jesus." It might even be fair to say that this type of appeal is the most common approach to evangelism in our day. Before I convey any misunderstanding, let me say that it is perfectly appropriate to teach people about the love of God. Love is one of the greatest themes of the Bible, and God's love is equally as important as any of His other attributes. The point I hope to make clear is this: Whether we are addressing a group of Christians, an audience of unconverted people, or a combination of the two, we must be careful not to misrepresent either the characteristics or the liberality of God's love. In other words, we must never give the impression that He loves in a way He does not, or that He loves every person in exactly the same way. How does the Bible describe God's love for man? I was recently in a place where a man repeatedly said to a large audience, many of whom were undoubtedly unconverted, "Jesus loves you. He loves you so, so much." His presentation of music was followed by an invitation to recite a "sinner's prayer," clearly acknowledging the possibility of the presence of unconverted people. But everyone present was asked to sing, "Jesus loves me; this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Does the Bible offer such assurance of God's love to unbelievers? If so, where?
In all of this, the one thing that stands out is the distinct absence of any references to God's universal love for individual unbelievers. Mark 10:21 may be a reference to Jesus' love for one such unbeliever as an individual, but it is worthy of note that most commentators are united in their uncertainty as to the precise meaning of the term "love" in this passage. In any case, when matched against the complete absence of this thought elsewhere, little can be gained from this reference in terms of building a doctrine of the love of God for all unbelievers as individuals. Although purely speculative, it is also a possibility that the man was elect and later repented. We know that God loves His elect while they are still sinners (Romans 5:8). We know that He loves "the world" in a general sense as discussed earlier (in part 1). But the fact remains that the Bible never says that God loves all unbelievers individually, let alone equally. Interestingly, as I was writing this article, the marquis in front of a local Baptist church bore the following message:
Clearly, the intent of this message was to convey to each person who passed by, the idea that God loves him as an individual. Based on the biblical data you just read, is this not false advertising? What harm can it possibly do to tell unconverted people that God loves them? Words are powerful tools. They can insult, comfort, persuade, or shatter. They can also deceive. Paul instructed Timothy to pay close attention to his teaching (1 Timothy 4:16), because he knew that words carelessly used, even with the best of intentions, could give the wrong impression, leading people into wrong thinking. There are a number of ways in which the words "God loves you" can give the wrong impression, potentially causing great harm if spoken unreservedly to unconverted people: 1. God may be degraded: The fact is, the unconverted person needs God. But when God's love is portrayed as a pleading sort of love, it begins to appear that God needs him. And if God, in any way, needs the person to choose Him, then the person is, in some sense, controlling God. As a result of this way of thinking, it has become increasingly popular (although totally unbiblical) to see God as a risk-taker, emotionally vulnerable, etc. After all, His attempts to woo the person He so desperately loves will not always succeed. Therefore, God will often be disappointed. In the estimation of the person who sees God in these ways, His sovereignty is slighted, His self-sufficiency denied, and His character misrepresented. But this risk-taking, vulnerable God cannot possibly be the God described in Scripturethe God who "works all things according to the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11), and who will accomplish all His good pleasure (cf. Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 115:3; 135:6; Daniel 4:35). 2. The sinner may be lured into false comfort: Some people go so far as to say that God loves unconverted people, "infinitely and unconditionally." The sinner who hears those words and believes them may be led to the understanding that God is also infinitely patient, even while he, the impenitent sinner, persists in his rebellion. It is true that in a properly understood sense, "perfect love casts out fear" (1 John 4:18, referring to the fear of future judgmenta fear that is relieved when one comes to Christ). But it is also true that unbiblical notions of God's love may cause unbelievers to cast out the necessary fear of Himthe fear that will draw them to repentance (cf. John 16:8). The resulting complacency could lead to the sinner's eternal ruin. 3. True biblical doctrines may become intolerable: When the unconverted person repeatedly hears people say what the Bible does not say about God's love, he may be hardened to what the Bible does say. Once he is assured that God loves all people unconditionally, even in their wickedness, he is much less likely to accept the truth that God hates "all who do iniquity" (Psalm 5:5), that unrepentant sinners are God's enemies (Romans 5:10), that they actually hate God (Romans 1:30), or that God is preparing for their judgment and destruction (Psalm 7:11-13). In addition, people who have been taught that God's love is universally and equally given are often reluctant to accept such important doctrines as unconditional election or the biblical practice of church discipline. According to their unbiblical understanding of God's love, these doctrines seem unloving. 4. The speaker could easily be proved wrong: The one who says to the unconverted, "God loves you," runs the risk of losing credibility with his audience. It doesn't take much for an unconverted but curious person to look through a Bible concordance and discover the complete absence of the universal, infinite, equally-given love that is so often presented as biblical truth. If Paul had tried to convince the Bereans (cf. Acts 17:11) that God loves every person individually and equally, they would have easily proved him a fraud when they searched the Scriptures to see if what he was saying was true. The reason this does not happen often today is that most unconverted people, and many professing Christians are biblically ignorant or indifferent. 5. God may be seen as inconsistent: What is the unbeliever to think when he hears that God loves him greatly, even unconditionally, but will send him to a fiery hell if he doesn't repent? Interestingly, I once heard a well-known Christian apologist say that when God sends a person to hell, it is because He loves the person. He loves him too much to "violate his free will," the man said. Such an idea is not only foreign to Scripture, it is completely out of character with everything we know about fathers. Imagine a father watching as his young son walks toward a sheer cliff. The father calls to the boy, saying, "Look out son! You'll die if you don't turn around." But the rebellious child ignores his father and keeps walking. What should this father do? Will he let the one he loves walk right over the edge because it would be unloving to pursue him and turn him around against his will? The truth is, none in heaven will complain that their wills were "violated," and none in hell will cling to any romantic notions about God's universal, infinite, or unconditional love. 6. As God's love is unbiblically widened, it becomes very shallow: How impressed would my children be if I told them that I loved every other child in the world just as much as I love them? Would they be awed at the magnanimity of my love? Or, being the special ones in whom I should delight above all others, might they feel slighted? How strange would it seem, even to all the other children, to hear that I loved them just as I do my own? If earthly fathers have a special love for their own children, why must God, who also has his own children, love every human being equally? The fact is, when we describe God's love as universalgiven equally to every personwe minimize the depth of His love for those who truly are His children. And we deny the special significance of biblical passages where God's love for His elect is described:
These verses are impossible to explain in context apart from their unique application to the elect. Are we to think that no human being will ever be separated from God's love? Is it true that every human being will be "made alive together with Christ" because of God's great love? Can every person know that he is "beloved by the Lord," because he has been chosen for salvation? Has God adopted every person as His child? Was Christ the actual propitiation (i.e. did He actually satisfy God's wrath) for every person?6 How then should we speak to the unconverted? From the Scriptures, Christians learn how to think, live, speak, pray, trust, and hope. We also learn how to preach and teach, not so much in terms of style or tone, but in terms of the message we should convey. And the responsibility to preach and teach biblically does not only apply to "professional" pastors and evangelists. Every Christian who presents the message of the Bible to a friend, a neighbor, or a family member must do so in a manner that accurately represents God and His Word. There are certain Christian doctrines that can be discerned only through deep, theological study. Some are scarcely represented in the Bible, making it difficult to know how we should think, act, or speak. But that is most certainly not the case when it comes to learning how to address the gospel to lost people. Beginning with John the Baptist, and then Jesus, and then the preachers throughout the book of Acts, we have a wonderful library of brief sermons to the unconverted. If we want to know how we should present the gospel, all we need to do is ask, "How did the first evangelists, including Jesus and John the Baptist, speak to unconverted people?" Certainly the words of these menthe words first used to evangelize an unconverted worldprovide us with worthy examples of the best ways to present the gospel today. We should, in fact, be wary of using words that were never used by these men, especially if our words convey ideas that were never conveyed by them. The following are the appeals, instructions, and commands to unconverted people, drawn from the four gospels and the book of Acts. I have not attempted to harmonize the gospels by identifying which are duplicate accounts of the same event. Where the words or meanings are identical, or nearly identical to one already quoted, I have chosen to reference the duplicates in parenthesis rather than quoting them.
Including passages referenced but not quoted, I have given sixty-three examples of evangelistic preaching or teaching. The word "love" is used only one time in all of those passages (John 3:16) and the single listener when Jesus said "For God so loved the world . . ." was Nicodemus the Pharisee. Given the context of the conversation, where Jesus is informing him that it is not his Jewish heritage that will get him into heaven, but rather the new birth, is it not likely that he would have understood Jesus to be saying God loved the world in general, meaning all nations of men, Jew and Gentile alike? Is it not unreasonable to think that Nicodemus would have gleaned from that single statement the idea that he was loved by God, individually and personally? Are we supposed to think that he ran to the other Pharisees and said, "Listen to this, guys! God loves each one of youindividually!"? No, the Pharisees already believed themselves to be loved by God because of their heritage (cf. Deuteronomy 7:7). This would have been no news to them at all. But hearing that God loved "the world,"Jew and Gentile alikewould have been something new and shocking. It would actually have been a great offense to prideful Jews. If Jesus' true intent was to inform Nicodemus that God loves every person as an individual, and if that idea were to be such a central and essential theme in evangelism as it has become today, is it not reasonable for us to think that the first evangelists would have said those words to someoneat least once or twice? It seems certain that they would have. But aside from Jesus' private and instructional comment to Nicodemus,7 the first evangelists simply never said such a thing to anyone. When one combines this fact with the knowledge that the Bible never teaches such a thing, how can we continue unreservedly assuring lost people that God loves them? Modern evangelicalism will not be easily persuaded that the concept of God's infinite, universal, unconditional love for every human being is an unbiblical idea, rooted in a man-centered theology, and that it should be put to rest. The vast majority of professing Christians today are convinced that it is perfectly appropriate, even necessary, to tell unconverted people that because God loves them individually, they should believe in Jesus. Perhaps even you have convinced yourself that this understanding of God's love is accurate. If so, have you not overlooked much biblical evidence to the contrary? As a preacher, a Sunday school teacher, or one who shares Christ with co-workers, neighbors, or family members, your responsibility is not to give unbelievers spiritual comfort by assuring them that they are loved by God. Your task is to make them uncomfortable by speaking the truth and pleading with them to run to Christ as their only hope. True spiritual comfort in the knowledge of God's fatherly love is rightly reserved only for those who are safe in Christ. Your responsibility, above all things, is to represent God as He represents Himself. It is to present Him in such a way that His glory is magnified in the reverently fearful and trembling hearts of men. It is my desire to grow in my understanding of how to think and speak biblically about the love of God for man. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions for improvement or correction regarding this article, please contact me at daryl@christfellowshipkc.org. Copyright 2004 © Daryl Wingerd __________________________ 1 Part 1 may be found at www.ccwonline.org.2 John Eldredge, Wild at Heart (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), p. 36. On the same page, the author informs the reader that this understanding of God came to him, not through his study of the Bible, but rather through the time he has spent counseling women. 3 It is true that the nation of Israel included many unbelievers. But God's love for Old Testament Israel must be understood in a prophetic, eschatalogical sense. Viewing God's love for Israel through the interpretive lens of the New Testament, it must be understood as the foreshadowing of His highest love for the body of Christ in the new covenant-true, spiritual Israel-those who are the descendants of Abraham, not through physical lineage, but through faith (cf. Rom. 4:11-12; 9:6-8; 11:1-10). And regardless of one's theological standpoint on prophecy and eschatology, God is never said to love every individual member of the Old Testament nation of Israel. Many times, unbelieving, wicked Israelites are the objects of His most extreme expressions of hatred (cf. Leviticus 26:27-30; Deuteronomy 28:63; Psalm 5:4-6 and 11:4-7, cf. Isaiah 59:1-3) 4 In Deuteronomy 10:18-19, God is said to love "the alien," referring to non-Israelites. The meaning is clearly parallel to Matthew 5:43-48 where God's benevolence is in view. Because of God's love for "the alien," He gives him food and clothing. Nothing of a salvific, redemptive love is indicated in this passage. 5 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Updated New American Standard Version of the Bible. 6 Some will say that the use of the word "propitiation" 1 John 2:2 proves that Christ did actually die for every human being ("And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."). This seemingly obvious understanding, however, overlooks two very important things: 1. The word "propitiation" indicates not merely potential substitution but rather actual substitution. If Christ actually bore the wrath of God on behalf of every sinner, then God has no remaining wrath to vent on anyone. With this understanding, unless God unjustly demands double payment, no one will be punished for their sins. What do we say then about those who have died in unbelief since the time of Christ and are already suffering in hell? Did Christ satisfy God's wrath on their behalf as well? 7 It is also quite possible that beginning in John 3:16, it is not Jesus' words that are recorded, but rather John's theological meditation on what Jesus said up to that point. We must remember that the red letters in our Bibles do not prove that Jesus spoke those words. Rather, they are the translators' opinion that Jesus said them. Beginning in John 3:16, several things change in style and vocabulary that could indicate that John, rather than Jesus is speaking. The same is possibly true later in the same chapter. From vv. 27-30, John the Baptist is speaking. But beginning in v. 31, the change in style and vocabulary seems to indicate that John the apostle is commenting on what the other John has said. If this is the case, nothing theological is changed in the meaning of John 3:16-21, but it would mean that the word "love" is never used-not even once-in a recorded conversation with an unconverted person. See D. A. Carson's commentary on John for a good discussion of this possibility (Pillar New Testament Commentary series, Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1991, pp. 203-204). AddendumCharles Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-CalvinistsIn the latter half of the 19th century, the great English pastor and evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, was embroiled in an ongoing debate with a group of pastors and theologians who became known as Hyper-Calvinists. This debate is recounted in Iain Murray's excellent book, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism. Spurgeon, a committed Calvinist himself, disagreed with Hyper-Calvinism as a theological system on four main points: ". . . its restriction of gospel invitations, its failure to treat the word and the promises of God as sufficient warrant for faith, its minimizing of the place of human responsibility, and its denial of any love in God except love to the elect."1 To say that God has no love for men except for His elect is to deny even the most general meaning of John 3:16 where God is said to have loved "the world" enough to send Christ to die. Hyper-Calvinism's unbiblical limitation of God's love also denies that God's kindness may in any way be understood as "loving." But when God sends rain, causes the sun to rise, or provides food and clothing, the Bible clearly describes these as loving actions that are extended in some degree to all people. We must be careful never to promote or repeat the unbiblical restrictions of Hyper-Calvinism. The gospel must be freely offered to everyone. All men must be commanded to repent, because all men are responsible before God. But a special note needs to be made about Charles Spurgeon and his preaching, specifically in reference to the Hyper-Calvinists' total limitation of God's love. As zealously as he contended against Hyper-Calvinism, Spurgeon understood that error is often committed in the other direction as well. When speaking to Christians about the love of God, he not only refuted Hyper-Calvinism's excessive limitations of God's love, but was just as critical of men who taught that God's love was universally and equally given to all. He vigorously defended the doctrine of election, and contended with those who denied God's special, higher love for those whom He has chosen. Consider the following selection from the work just referenced as Iain Murray comments and then quotes Spurgeon:
It was clearly important to him to represent God biblicallyto unashamedly affirm God's sovereignty in giving His "electing, discriminating, distinguishing love," to His chosen people alone. But notice that Spurgeon spoke this way when speaking to Christians. One cannot help but notice in other places that when speaking to the unconverted, He sometimes seemed to depart from his own commitment to represent God's love in biblical, theologically consistent ways. As Iain Murray comments:
Apparently, Spurgeon did not see any contradiction in saying to Christians that God's special love "is not love for all men," while telling the unconverted person that Christ does, in fact, possess that saving love for him, and that he need only open the door of his heart to receive it. But is such a promise ever used in Scripture as the means of inviting the unconverted to repent? Revelation 3:20 may come to mind, but those words are spoken to a church, and in the previous verse Jesus made it clear that if He loves a person, he will rebuke and chasten that person. So at best, the verse can be understood as Christ waiting to see if the people whom He does love will repent before He must use the rod to bring them to repentance. But nowhere are we given reason to understand this verse as a general offer to the unconverted. And further, as was detailed in the main body of this article, no such use of the word "love," nor even a single example of such preaching can be found in the Bible. So how did Charles Spurgeon justify saying such things to unconverted people? Consider yet another quote, one which seems to explain much about his reasoning:
Charles Spurgeon was a passionate evangelist who wanted desperately to see people saved. We would all be better evangelists if we shared his passion. And it was his passion for the lost, not poor theology or the expectations of his culture, that led him to speak to unconverted people in these ways. Even if no biblical warrant can be found for some of his words as noted above, the vast majority of his appeals to the unconverted were soundly biblical. Even though I may disagree with Spurgeon on this issue, there would have been no need to research and write an article such as this to him, or others like him. If I had written these pages with Spurgeon's preaching in mind, I would certainly be guilty of straining out a gnat. His freeness in proclaiming God's love was never misunderstood the way it is today, because it was held up against consistently sound biblical preaching that glorified God and humbled sinners. Sadly, the same cannot often be said today. That which may have been a gnat in Spurgeon's time has become a camel in ours. And evangelicalism is stretching its doctrinal throat wide enough to swallow it whole. Copyright 2004 © Daryl Wingerd _____________________ 1 Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), p. 99. Books | Life of Trust | Order Form Ministry Tools | Bible Survey | Publications Order Online | Home |