There Is A Complexity to God’s Love That Often Escapes Our Notice

 

From ‘The Difficult Doctrine of God’s Love,’ by D.A. Carson[1]

There is a reality that exists among Christians and non-Christians alike and it is to flatten the the love of God into one definition. We know this reality in everyday life if we think about it. When I say that I love my wife, no one in their right mind thinks that I love others in the same way. And when I say that I love my children, no one thinks that I love them the same as my wife and the same as I do to my fellow man.

 

Carson is helpful here. Note that he shows 5 ways that the Bible speaks of God’s love. “I draw your attention to five distinguishable ways the Bible speaks of the love of God. This is not an exhaustive list, but it is heuristically[2] useful.”

 

Some Different Ways the Bible Speaks of the Love of God

 

1)        The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father. 

2)        God’s providential love over all that he has made

3)        God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16).

4)        God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect

5)        Finally, God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward his own people in a provisional or conditional way conditioned, that is, on obedience.

 

Carson will warn us not to separate these aspects into permanent, independent boxes as if “each were hermetically sealed off from the other.” Although they are to be distinguished, they are not to be divided. The character of God’s simplicity does not permit that. Their uniqueness does help us resolve some problems, though.

 

A common occasion that I have dealt with is with the familiar John 3:16. Many times, as the argument goes, this verse is pitted against verses like 1 Thessalonians 1:4[3]. If you treat both aspects of God’s love as being the same, you are led to believe the entire world is God’s elect and that being so leads us to universalism; to heresy. The discussion avoids the truth that God is speaking of a different aspect to His love in each case (Note #3 and #4 above).

 

This distinguishing of God’s love will help us avoid common clichés. Carson notes these 2:   

 

a)        “God’s love is unconditional.” But this cannot apply to #5.

b)        “God loves everyone exactly the same way.” And this cannot apply to #4.

 

Carson notes that “it is clear that what the Bible says about the love of God is more complex and nuanced than what is allowed by mere sloganeering.” This requires us as readers of Scripture to identify the aspect of God’s love that is being spoken of in Scriptural text.

“Christian faithfulness entails our responsibility to grow in our grasp of what it means to confess that God is love.”

What are some implications for the careful Bible reader?

A.       Avoid Sentimentalism: The reader must avoid reducing God's love to a single cliché, such as "God loves everyone the same way". While God loves the world in a salvific sense (3), that is distinct from his peculiar, effective love for the elect (4).

 

B.       Be balanced in your understanding of God’s love. The reader cannot pick one aspect to the exclusion of others. They must be held together to form a balanced, biblical picture, even when they seem difficult to reconcile (e.g., the tension between the unconditional nature of election and the conditional nature of obedience-based love).

C.      Context is King: The careful reader must pay attention to the specific biblical context to understand which aspect of love is being discussed. For example, a passage discussing obedience-based love (5) should not be read as a definition of salvation-by-works, nor should a text on salvific love (3) be used to deny the reality of elective love (4).

 

D.      Integrate with Other Attributes: God's love must not be divorced from his other perfections—holiness, sovereignty, and wrath. Understanding this ensures that the reader does not create a "God" who is merely a doting, harmless figure, but one who is both righteous and loving.

 

E.        Pastoral and Personal Application: Understanding these aspects properly brings both assurance and a call to obedience. It allows believers to rest in the secure, effective love of God (4) while simultaneously understanding the call to remain in His love through obedience (5)

[1] https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/documents/carson/2000_difficult_doctrine_of_the_love_of_God.pdf

[2] a common-sense rule (or set of rules) intended to increase the probability of solving some problem

[3] For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,

 

We've confused being nice with being loving.

We've confused being nice with being loving. 

Nice avoids the hard conversation. Love steps into them. 

Nice keeps the peace. Love helps others see their blind spots. 

Nice is about your comfort. Love is for the good of others.  

Jesus always led with love. He sat with the woman at the well, told her the truth about her life, and didn't flinch. 

He looked at the rich young ruler, saw how trapped he was by his wealth, and said the thing nobody else would say… because He loved him. 

Love might sting in the short term. But when done with the right heart it will lead to greater life. 

We've settled for niceness because it's easier and it keeps people from being upset with us. But niceness that avoids the truth isn't kindness. It's just self-protection with a smile.

https://substack.com/@rethinksimplebibleteachings/note/c-251124594?r=434bqv&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

The Church: Here and now and There and Then.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:1, there are 2 prepositions: “to” and “in.” "To" connects to the recipients, a local earthly identity; and "in" defines their spiritual identity, placing them in union with God rather than just physical location. The assertion that a local congregation is a spiritual institution—more than a human social club but still a real, earthly community—carries profound implications for how evangelicals view its authority, purpose, and daily life. It suggests that while the Church exists in the "here and now," it also connected to "there and then" spiritual identity. It is “visible” yet “invisible.”

The visible Church and the invisible Church are distinct and should not be confused; yet they should not be separated. In the present, one does not exist without the other; and one should not be considered without the other. When we gather as a local entity (1 Corinthians 11:18a) we also gather as “the assembly of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:22-23).

Because the Church is a spiritual institution, its authority does not come from a democratic majority or human autonomy, but from the Word of God.

Because the Church exists in union in Christ there is a unique social order, not dictated by human constructs but by Biblical order and definition.

Because the Church is not less than a human institution; it suffers from human frailty, sin, and organizational needs that find their solution in the "spiritual house" that orders and transcends these.

Because the Church is human and heavenly at the same time, it is impossible to be logically loyal to one without the other.