Impartial Love

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hey guys, I've been away from the forum for some time but I wanted to put some thoughts out here for consideration. I've been wrestling with some of these questions for a long time and haven't been able to find classical Arminianism to give satisfactory answers to them. Only universal reconciliation appears to give answers to them.

What I want to focus on is the fact that God is a fair God who shows no partiality. The Scriptures say a couple times that God shows no partiality, and I think that is a universal principle of God's character.

The Scriptures also declare that God is loving, and that He Himself is love. So my logic is as follows:

A) God shows no partiality
B) God is perfect in love

Conclusion: To the extent that God expresses His love, He does so without partiality.

Now, in Calvinism, God only loves a select number of people (those whom He predestined for salvation). Any consistent Calvinist would have to admit that God does not love the non-elect (I've only heard James White frankly admit this, however).

But in Arminianism, God loves every single person He created. And according to my logic from above, we'd have to say that God's love is equally distributed (due to His impartial love nature) towards every human being who has ever lived.

Now I present to you the problem I see with this.

THE PROBLEM: In this earthly life, it does not appear that every human being has an equal opportunity for salvation.

For example, there are children who are born into godly Christian families who hear about Jesus from birth. There are also children who are born in families who have never heard of Jesus and may never hear of Jesus in their lifetime. Americans may have dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of opportunities to hear the gospel preached (whether by radio, television, or by physically entering a church building), whereas some Asians may only be able to count the opportunities on their hand.

Calvinists have no problem with this because they can rely on God's sovereign election to give dreams and visions to the lost where missionaries are lacking, and ultimately to spark faith in the hearts of the elect wherever they may be. Or they could say that those who never heard were simply the non-elect. But Arminianistic logic fails to give an adequate reason why these people did not have an equal opportunity for the news which could spare them from an eternal fate.

My second contention is in regards to God's sovereign intervention in the apostles' lives. The apostle Paul got to meet the risen Jesus. The apostle Thomas would never have believed had not Jesus appeared to him physically in order for him to touch His wounds. All of the other remaining apostles, as well as five hundred other individuals, had seen Jesus with their own eyes. This was by far the strongest factor in their utter surrender to Christ and their willingness to continue to the end of their life faithful to God's will.

Calvinists, once again, have no problem seeing this sovereign intervention as being proof of God's unconditional election upon these men's lives, not only for their salvation, but also for their election as apostles and witnesses of the resurrection. God gave them this privilege because He loved them. He doesn't give the same privilege to atheists who demand a similar sign because He does not love the atheists because they are not His elect. But Arminianism fails to give adequate answers here. Paul's free will was interfered with on the road to Damascus. Why does God not give equal opportunity to all people if He truly loves them just as much as he loved Paul or Thomas?

I now see what Calvinists are arguing here. If God really loves all people, then He utterly failed in fully expressing His love in order to win the lost if most reject him. I would oftentimes counter with, "but God created us with the freedom to reject Him, so God is not to blame that they end up in hell!" But my question remains. If God loves those atheists just as much as he loves Paul or Thomas, why would he not give them a vision of Jesus or an opportunity to see and touch His wounds?

The question comes down to whether God loves all people or not. If God doesn't love all people equally, then Calvinism seems more plausible. But it appears to me that the Scriptures clearly teach that God truly does love all people (For God so loved the world, etc.). But the fact remains that God does not show His salvivic love in the same way or in the same measure to all people in this earthly life. Therefore, I must conclude, that there is some point in time in the future, after this earthly life finishes, that God plans to equalize the lack of opportunities that most people have in their earthly life. This opens the door for postmortem revelation and repentance. It appears that universal reconciliation is the logical and scriptural conclusion if God loves all people equally. If He doesn't love all people equally, then Calvinism or Classical Arminianism are viable options, but I must admit that Calvinism is more logically consistent.

[Paidion]

The following verse seems to suggest that the LORD does not love everyone equally. How would you fit this verse into your thinking?

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. (Psalms 11:5)

[Singalphile]

You are assuming, I think, that the only people who are saved or will be saved (by Christ), are the people who know in this life that they are saved. That might be true, but I am not sure that that is clearly taught.

I would say these things:

1) God doesn't favor Jews over Gentiles; He "accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." (Acts 10:34-46). Beyond that, you might have to clarify what you mean by "God shows no partiality". The idea of God loving everyone equally is also a bit difficult to understand.

2) God does give much to some of His servants and less to others. Less will be expected from the latter. (Luke 12:43-48)

3) God will make Himself known in some way to those who seek Him. (Matthew 7:7-11)

4) I think that some people serve Him as best they can with what they have, even if they don't know exactly who they are serving right now (Matthew 25:37-40).

5) Ultimately, everyone's works will be judged. There may be some names in the "book of life" that we don't expect (Rev 20:11-15).

God shows His love to all by bringing good things to the unrighteous and righteous (Matthew 5:44-47) and John 3:16. Yet all suffer. Why doesn't He make Himself known to everyone right now like He did to Saul? Why is He waiting?

This is more or less the problem of pain, it seems to me. We'll be asking these questions until our Lord's return, I'm sure.

Finally, certainly our time and money should go towards reaching every person with the gospel. God is not willing that any should perish. "And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, ...." (Luke 12)

[backwoodsman]

This opens the door for postmortem revelation and repentance. It appears that universal reconciliation is the logical and scriptural conclusion if God loves all people equally.

I would say, postmortem revelation and repentance, not universal reconciliation, is the logical and scriptural conclusion. From that point, one can go to either UR or annihilationism.

[dwilkins]

It seems to me that annihilation fixes a great deal of the tension you are seeing.

[RICHinCHRIST]

The following verse seems to suggest that the LORD does not love everyone equally. How would you fit this verse into your thinking?

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. (Psalms 11:5)

I would see this as hyperbole. It's written in poetry. Jesus taught us to love our enemies in order to become perfect like our Father who also loved His enemies. I've often thought about this. I wonder if some of the psalms are not inspired but are just the expression of David's heart in his limited knowledge of what was revealed to him about God. That probably sounds like a slippery slope in regards to the inerrancy of Scripture, but I'm content with that explanation.

After all, does it sound like Jesus would have been supportive of bashing enemy Edomite babies against rocks for fun?

[RICHinCHRIST]

I would say, postmortem revelation and repentance, not universal reconciliation, is the logical and scriptural conclusion. From that point, one can go to either UR or annihilationism.

Perhaps so. But I've given this example once before. Imagine if Richard Dawkins was to have a Damascus road experience like Paul. (And also imagine that if Dawkins did not have this experience he would have continued to his deathbed in rebellion against the truth). Then Richard Dawkins spends the rest of his life as an apologist for Christianity, not atheism. Dawkins then experiences the salvation of God and lives a righteous life the rest of his days. Wouldn't that be a more desirable end than for him to continue on in his rebellion? God chooses to not reveal himself to Dawkins, but chose to do so with Paul. Is it because He loves Paul more? Or is it because God doesn't want to reveal Himself to Dawkins and prefers to annihilate him? Or is it because He will one day reveal His love to Dawkins in a different way, after death, ending in His ultimate salvation? The first two options prove that God loves Paul more than Dawkins. The last one would prove God loves them equally.

[RICHinCHRIST]

You are assuming, I think, that the only people who are saved or will be saved (by Christ), are the people who know in this life that they are saved. That might be true, but I am not sure that that is clearly taught.

I agree. But classical Arminianism would say that this earthly life is the testing ground for the determination of whether one will have salvation after death. My question is, why wouldn't God give more opportunities to others who may sincerely have a change of heart if He made it more unequivocally clear to them His intentions, like in the case with Paul or Thomas? If only in this life we have a chance (and after death there is no second chance), why wouldn't God exercise more influence in swaying the will of His enemies? Wouldn't that be the loving thing to do?

[Homer]

Why does God not give equal opportunity to all people if He truly loves them just as much as he loved Paul or Thomas?

IMO it was God's sovereign choice to give them (and the other Apostles and 500) the special opportunity they had for His purpose, not for their benefit. Their purpose as witnesses is clear when we consider that faith is not by sight but is based on belief of testimony.

The "God so loved the world" of John 3:16 is not a declaration of equal love for everyone. "World" is a singular noun in the Greek - God loves us collectively, not necessarily equally as individuals.

I find in the scriptures that those who accept Jesus are saved and those who reject Him are condemned. We are not told of the fate of those who never hear the gospel. But I am confident God will deal with them justly, which I base on a principle stated by Paul in another context:


2 Corinthians 8:12, New King James Version (NKJV)

12. For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.

[RICHinCHRIST]

IMO it was God's sovereign choice to give them (and the other Apostles and 500) the special opportunity they had for His purpose, not for their benefit...

I agree it was for God's purpose, but they surely benefited also! Thomas would have most likely rejected Jesus and went to hell had he not seen Jesus risen. He sounded pretty adamant in his doubting! I guess he got lucky, then.

The "God so loved the world" of John 3:16 is not a declaration of equal love for everyone. "World" is a singular noun in the Greek - God loves us collectively, not necessarily equally as individuals.

We may be collectively in Adam, but the only reason why we are a group is because it is made by individuals. At least I know now that not all Arminians believe God loves all people. I always thought that was a given for Arminians. Makes God's character in Arminianism sound a lot more like Calvinism. So I guess we earn God's love by our decisions? God only loves us if our will aligns with His?