I have three young children, ages 4, 2, & 10 months, that I tuck into bed every night. Most nights we read together, talk, and conclude with prayer. One of the things that I attempt to do regularly, especially in prayer, is to speak the truth of Christianity, specifically the attributes of God, the work of Jesus, and the message of salvation. A point I repeatedly mention is God’s love for us. But recently, as I began to analyze my words with my theological convictions, I felt a problem arising – a contradiction.
In order to explain, I first need to preface by stating that I would consider myself a believer in sovereign grace. By this I mean that I believe, through Scripture and experience, that God is doing the saving. Man rejects God, but God, in spite of man’s rejection, draws men to himself and saves them (this may happen in many ways and through many different means). I would not place myself in the traditional Calvinist box, but my goal is not to fit into a nice and neat theological package, but to seek to know the truth. So how does God’s love pose a potential problem for the Calvinist (going forward, I will use the term Calvinist since it is the common term for those who believe in sovereign grace)?
The new Calvinist movement (often dubbed “The New Calvinists” or “Young, Restless, Reformed”) has produced much fruit. There has been a renewed emphasis on substantial learning and theology coupled with a big focus on missions. These are both great things. Contrary to the new movement, old school Calvinists and Reformed Baptists were often seen as harsh, and often extreme in their views. They typically had a heavy emphasis on election and the inability of man, God’s judgment, TULIP, etc. The new Calvinist movement, however, seems a little softer in their approach. This has attracted many who hold a high view of God’s sovereignty, who don’t believe in the “repeat this prayer” gospel, but who are not staunch Calvinists. I myself have found this appealing. But there seems to be a fly in the ointment – a consistency problem.
As I talked with my children about God’s love for them, how he loved the world, etc., I found myself feeling conflicted. For if man is unable to come to God (in the Calvinist sense), God chooses whom he will save, and he does not save all, then it cannot be said that God loves everyone. If Calvinists are going to be consistent with their theology, they must agree with this point, as many traditional Calvinists have done (e.g. Calvin, A.W. Pink, etc.). But many in the new Calvinist movement, including notables like D.A. Carson and Mark Driscoll, would affirm that God loves everyone. Driscoll states: “And in reading the Bible, we see that it says everyone is loved by God.” Likewise, Carson affirms that we can tell anyone that God loves them. So let’s look at the problem a little closer.
Dr. Jerry Walls, in what he has called the Calvinist Conundrum, has framed the problem this way:
- God truly loves all persons.
- Truly to love someone is to desire their well being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you can.
- The well being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
- God could determine all persons freely to accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
- Therefore, all will be saved.
Now obviously Calvinists deny (5). But in order to deny (5), the logical conclusion, you must deny one of the other premises. So which one will it be? Since (3) and (4) are consistent with Calvinist teaching, it must be (1) or (2). Now to deny (1) would mean that God does not love everyone. And if that is the case, we must stop using that language in evangelism, preaching, talking with our kids, etc. If we are to be consistent, our speech must match our beliefs. But most of the new Calvinists are not willing to deny premise (1), for the Scriptures seem to endorse God’s love for everyone (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9) – not to mention how distasteful this is to many.
Whereas old school Calvinism would just outright deny premise (1), the new Calvinists are more prone to deny premise (2). Premise two is denied in favor of the view that God has different kinds of love. In order to overcome what may seem like word games, analogies have been used. Consider a husband. He loves his wife, his parents, his children, and his friends, but his love for each is different. His love for his wife is unique and different than his love for his children or friends. In the same way, it is argued, God loves everyone, but has a special kind of love for his elect. But this analogy has a couple of problems.
First, the love used in each sense is still a love that is consistent with premise (2). It desires their true well being and it seeks to bring it about as much as possible within the context of the relationship. So the differences in love are not due to the nature of love itself, but rather the boundaries of the relationships instituted by God shape the nature of the love. In other words, it is the position one finds himself in with another that determines the appropriate kind of true love. This leads to the second point.
Apart from Christ, every person is positionally or relationally in the same situation with God. So the restrictions of relationship that are given in the analogy do not apply and therefore render the analogy useless. In the context of his relationship with man, God either loves or he does not love. He either desires mankind’s full flourishing in relationship with him or he does not. There seems to be no middle ground. In order to avoid this difficult choice, some other alternatives have been suggested – the most prominent being that of common grace.
In an effort to still use phrases like “God loves the world” and “God loves you” while understanding that God does not love everyone like he loves his elect, people have suggested that God loves the non-elect in the same way he loves all of the created order. He gives them life, food to eat, air to breathe, family, etc. He can be said to love them because he gives them all these things before final judgment. “It is love”, they say, but love in the same sense that God loves ants, grass, and my Golden Retriever, Jersey. To tell an unbeliever that God loves them, and to mean it in this kind of ant-loving way, seems deceptive and disingenuous. It may feel good to say, but what you mean and what the other person understands you to mean are two totally different things. So how do we move forward? What is the appropriate way for Calvinists to speak and interact with others?
Many of the New Calvinists equivocate on the word love, using the same word, often in the same context, and having different meanings – often meanings that are not disclosed to the hearer. For me, this should not be done. For as I have shown, this universal love talk is inconsistent at best and deceptive at worse. As I can see it, there seems to be two alternatives: deny that God loves everyone or move to a more Arminian position. I stand conflicted.
Jordan Tong
Jordan D. Tong 
Leave a reply to stjustin Cancel reply