Impartial Love
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:35 pm
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.
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.