The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Gebruikersavatar
Bert Mulder
Berichten: 9086
Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
Contacteer:

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Bert Mulder »

Canuck BC schreef:quote bert:

"voorgesteld is, en niet, dat zij metterdaad tot alle mensen uitgestrekt wordt.

is displayed
and:
not that she indeed is extended to all"


I really think that things are made more difficult than they are. I don't think that God ever made a secret about something that he states so clearly in His Word. God says:
John 3 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

When God says He loved the world, he means literally every single person that He has made. It is so obvious and yet we as christians still have heated conversations about what this or that person has said. But I still think it's the word of God that counts, not the perception that people from whatever church have given to it. This doesn't mean that Calvin is wrong here. He says that it IS diplayed to all. Which means, in my opinion, that God showed and shows Himself a loving God for all men.

This doesn't mean all people accept that love. Because it's in their nature to chose against that love. And since they are not even ABLE to chose for that love, all men have to come to God through that same love. This may seem a paradox but through the love God displayed to all men, He offers them a chance to get to know Him as their Saviour. And that's true love for all men.
But, obviously, not every and each person gets to know God as his saviour. And THAT is what Calvin means by saying: it is not extended to all.

Because according to what you say, Mr Mulder, one could conclude that the display of love to all mankind doesn't count. In my opinion, you kind of emphasize the last part of that sentence though the first part is really there.

And since there's a lot more in the next verse (John 3:17) where God says He doesn't want to condemn the WORLD (which is in my opinion a word used to talk about all mankind) but to save the world. Isn't that a word of love? Does God here not tell us He wants the whole world to be saved? And don't we believe as NRC christians or reformed christians that Jesus' blood was enough to wash ALL the sins of the world? And since we believe that, don't we have to agree on general non-electing love, which in my opinion is a love for everyone, no limitation, NO ONE excluded.
My esteemed Canuck friend:

This text deals with the love of God for the world, ie. the cosmos, in the first place.

In other words, God so loved His creation, that He gave His only begotten son. And His creation, the cosmos, will be redeemed in the new heaven and the new earth.

And that is possible because Christ suffered on the cross. And indeed is His redemption sufficient for the sins of the whole world, but nevertheless, Christ died not for all, but only for his Own. That is pretty clear from the words of Christ Himself during His earthly ministry. "I pray not for the world, but for those Thou hast given Me", etc.

Furthermore, in this text itself. "that whosoever BELIEVES in Me, shall not perish, but have everlasting life". Christ in this text is not promising universal redemption, but He is promising to save those who believe in Him. And how does one come to faith? Faith is a gift of God.

From your response seems like you are a member of the NRC. As a member of the NRC, you would certainly agree with what I have stated here (I hope)?
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Gebruikersavatar
Canuck BC
Berichten: 50
Lid geworden op: 29 mar 2008, 23:30
Locatie: Chilliwack

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Canuck BC »

My esteemed Canuck friend:

This text deals with the love of God for the world, ie. the cosmos, in the first place.

In other words, God so loved His creation, that He gave His only begotten son. And His creation, the cosmos, will be redeemed in the new heaven and the new earth.

And that is possible because Christ suffered on the cross. And indeed is His redemption sufficient for the sins of the whole world, but nevertheless, Christ died not for all, but only for his Own. That is pretty clear from the words of Christ Himself during His earthly ministry. "I pray not for the world, but for those Thou hast given Me", etc.

Furthermore, in this text itself. "that whosoever BELIEVES in Me, shall not perish, but have everlasting life". Christ in this text is not promising universal redemption, but He is promising to save those who believe in Him. And how does one come to faith? Faith is a gift of God.

From your response seems like you are a member of the NRC. As a member of the NRC, you would certainly agree with what I have stated here (I hope)?
I really agree with a lot of what you are saying here. But I still doubt if one could say that Christ died only for His Own. I really think that it kind of diminishes the greatness of the miracle that happened when God sent His own Son to die for the sin of men.
My point is: when you say that Christ's redemption was sufficient for the sin of the whole world but that He only died for His Own, He could have had, figuratively speaking, a lot less suffering on the cross. Why would He suffer for the sins that He knows He's not going to have to forgive because the sinners who committed these sins won't believe in Him as their Saviour. That would have been unnecessary suffering speaking from your point of view. (no offense!)

Or is this way off-topic?
But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we ARE healed.
Gebruikersavatar
Bert Mulder
Berichten: 9086
Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
Contacteer:

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Bert Mulder »

Esteemed Canuck,

Imagine you are familiar with TULIP, aka the 5 points of calvinism.

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited Atonement
Irrisistable Grace
Perseverance and Preservation

Here we are talking about the L - Limited atonement, or the 2nd head of docrine of the Canons of Dordt.

Whether it diminishes the greatness of his offer on the cross, I don't think so, but that is neither here or there...

What is important is that by denying limited atonement, you fall into the camp of universal atonement. Or else you say that Christ died for some that He did not save... For whatever reason...
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Gebruikersavatar
Canuck BC
Berichten: 50
Lid geworden op: 29 mar 2008, 23:30
Locatie: Chilliwack

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Canuck BC »

Sorry, I didn't put a question-mark to the end of my last sentence because it was a question rather than a statement why I disagree with you. It was just that your answer made me think and I just wrote down where I got stuck in my own reasoning about this. But I guess I put it too much like this was what I believe. Of course I agree with Calvin, though I hadn't heard of that TULIP thing before.

And yeah, coming back on your NRC comment, what you stated there is indeed what I believe to be right yet sometimes I don't understand it fully. But I'm still young :huhu
But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we ARE healed.
Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 mar 2007, 11:25

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Flynn »

Hey Burt and others,

Its good to see the discussion up and running again on this thread.

Burt says: "This text deals with the love of God for the world, ie. the cosmos, in the first place."

And:

"In other words, God so loved His creation"

There are a couple of points here that can be made.

The first one is the exegetical case that the love of 3;16 is to the creation. Thats a relatively new idea which does not have much root in classic Reformed theology. The second point has to do with historical theology. Generally in Reformed theology, the love of God to creation is the lower form of love. The love of the elect is the higher form.

I am currently working my way through Wolfgang Musculus' Common Places.

Here is a link from an entire chapter from that work: Of the Lovingness of God towards Man:
http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=241 Typos are all mine of course :(

You can see all the other sources I have so far collated from classic Calvinists on the Love of God.
Calvin: http://calvinandcalvinism.com//?p=93
Polanus: http://calvinandcalvinism.com//?p=33

You can scope out the index page here: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214

You will also see many early Reformed comments on the death of Christ.

I dont think any classic Calvinist has connected the love of God in 3:16 with Gods love of creation per se, but of people. The debate has been whether or not it was only the elect or all mankind. The early Reformers generally adopted the "all mankind" reading.

Anyway, I hope you are doing well and that you receive this comment from me as coming in friendliness.

take care,
David
Gebruikersavatar
Canuck BC
Berichten: 50
Lid geworden op: 29 mar 2008, 23:30
Locatie: Chilliwack

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Canuck BC »

For like as the nature of naughtiness is such that the proper quality thereof is to hate all things, and to be maliciously disposed towards all men, so the nature of goodness is contrariwise, so that it is the properly thereof to love, and to be kindly disposed towards all.
Why does this article immediately conclude it is disposed to all men? Even if naughtiness would be disposed to all men, does that really mean that it counts for goodness too? (especially when you're talking about goodness disposed to men by God)
But if you consider the goodness and Majesty of God jointly, I beseech you, what can be more agreeable for the good God and Prince of all, to love his subjects, whereas malice and Majesty be joined together, there no doubt is more place for hatred, than for the love of the subjects, which we see betides in tyrants. Let us therefore learn on the other side contrary unto that what we ought to consider of the joining together of God’s goodness and his Majesty.
is righteousness the same as malice? I think that when God's majesty and righteousness be joined together He is the Judge that condemns people for their sins. But I wouldn't say malice. Because God has, in my opinion, no desire to do evil.
The Scripture does attribute many things unto God by figure and similitude of man’s affections, which do not so agree unto the nature of God, as they do unto our nature. And yet for all that, it is not without reason, that it does speak unto men in this wise of God, to apply itself unto our capacity.
So here it says the love of God is different from our love? I always hear people say that love is one of the few things that God left us in this world of all the great things that were in paradise with Adam and Eve. The only difference between our love and God's love is in my opinion that God is able to love fully and we don't. But that doesn't make His love itself different from ours.
One self-same good man of a house, as the good husband, does specially love his wife, and as a good father he loves his children above others, and as a good householder he loves all his household, as a good neighbour he odes use him lovingly among his neighbours, and generally as a good man, he loves all men, and hates no man: and yet for all that, as there is in him one self-same goodness, so there is also in him one self same virtue and distination or division all one in general, and yet ordered and distinated & divided by diverse sorts and kinds.
First, the love of God is different from our love and now the article compares the two different loves. That's like comparing apples and oranges. I think this argument makes the other weak.

I regret I don't have time to work this out now, but I really have to go. I will continue my comment if someone hasn't done it before I come back. Or do I totally misunderstand the article and is it nonsense that I say here? :?
But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we ARE healed.
Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 mar 2007, 11:25

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Flynn »

Musculus:
For like as the nature of naughtiness is such that the proper quality thereof is to hate all things, and to be maliciously disposed towards all men, so the nature of goodness is contrariwise, so that it is the properly thereof to love, and to be kindly disposed towards all.
Canuck BC
Why does this article immediately conclude it is disposed to all men? Even if naughtiness would be disposed to all men, does that really mean that it counts for goodness too? (especially when you're talking about goodness disposed to men by God)
David: Firstly he is drawing a comparison. From malice comes hate. The truly malicious will hate all that is good. Conversely, from righteousness will flow goodness. The truely righteous will always be well disposed toward that which is good.

Musculus:
But if you consider the goodness and Majesty of God jointly, I beseech you, what can be more agreeable for the good God and Prince of all, to love his subjects, whereas malice and Majesty be joined together, there no doubt is more place for hatred, than for the love of the subjects, which we see betides in tyrants. Let us therefore learn on the other side contrary unto that what we ought to consider of the joining together of God’s goodness and his Majesty.
Canuck BC
is righteousness the same as malice? I think that when God's majesty and righteousness be joined together He is the Judge that condemns people for their sins. But I wouldn't say malice. Because God has, in my opinion, no desire to do evil.
David: good princes love their subjects. Bad princes (tyrants) hate their subjects. Both are converse analogues of each other. God’s majesty will necessarily mean a union of that with a good disposition to the good he sees.

Musculus:
The Scripture does attribute many things unto God by figure and similitude of man’s affections, which do not so agree unto the nature of God, as they do unto our nature. And yet for all that, it is not without reason, that it does speak unto men in this wise of God, to apply itself unto our capacity.
Canuck BC:
So here it says the love of God is different from our love? I always hear people say that love is one of the few things that God left us in this world of all the great things that were in paradise with Adam and Eve. The only difference between our love and God's love is in my opinion that God is able to love fully and we don't. But that doesn't make His love itself different from ours.
David: Predications made to man, which can be made to God, as well, are only done so analogically. Like we ascribe to God anthropomorphically rising and declining passions.

Musculus:
One self-same good man of a house, as the good husband, does specially love his wife, and as a good father he loves his children above others, and as a good householder he loves all his household, as a good neighbour he does use him lovingly among his neighbours, and generally as a good man, he loves all men, and hates no man: and yet for all that, as there is in him one self-same goodness, so there is also in him one self same virtue and distination or division all one in general, and yet ordered and distinated & divided by diverse sorts and kinds.
Canuck BC:
First, the love of God is different from our love and now the article compares the two different loves. That's like comparing apples and oranges. I think this argument makes the other weak.
David: Anlogically. He is saying, the Father can love the Son, with one sort of love, and love the angels with another, and love elect men with another, and creation with another: and all this is analogical to human love. We should think therefore that no one love precludes other expressions of love. A man loves his wife especially, and his children, especially too, but with a different specialness. And so on. God can love the elect especially and love all men in another sense.

Canuck BC:
I regret I don't have time to work this out now, but I really have to go. I will continue my comment if someone hasn't done it before I come back. Or do I totally misunderstand the article and is it nonsense that I say here?
David: I don’t know the presuppositions you are bringing to the text so I don’t know.

Hope that helps,
David
Gebruikersavatar
Canuck BC
Berichten: 50
Lid geworden op: 29 mar 2008, 23:30
Locatie: Chilliwack

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Canuck BC »

David: Predications made to man, which can be made to God, as well, are only done so analogically. Like we ascribe to God anthropomorphically rising and declining passions.
But does that really change the meaning of love when talking about God's love?
David: Anlogically. He is saying, the Father can love the Son, with one sort of love, and love the angels with another, and love elect men with another, and creation with another: and all this is analogical to human love. We should think therefore that no one love precludes other expressions of love. A man loves his wife especially, and his children, especially too, but with a different specialness. And so on. God can love the elect especially and love all men in another sense.
Why would you divide love in many different sorts? I think love is love. Only the expression of love differs because like you say it depends on to whom it is disposed.
David: I don’t know the presuppositions you are bringing to the text so I don’t know.
Which presuppositions?
But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we ARE healed.
Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 mar 2007, 11:25

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Flynn »

Canuck BC:
But does that really change the meaning of love when talking about God's love?
David: Well thats a really big debate, the nature of analogical, equivocal and univocal predication and language in reference to God and man. We must say that God truly hates sin and truly loves righteousness. But the nature of that hating and loving is not univically the same as man loves and hates. This goes back to centuries old debate.

Canuck BC:
Why would you divide love in many different sorts? I think love is love. Only the expression of love differs because like you say it depends on to whom it is disposed.
David. Let me try this, and this may sound a little crass. There is sexual love between a husband and a wife. The love that man has towards another woman, is never a lesser degree of sexual love. The difference is not simply in degree or quantity.

The love between the Father and the Son is not merely a higher quantity or degree or intensification of the love that the Father expresses towards the fallen man. Its more complex than mere increases in intensification. Make sense?

Old David:
I don’t know the presuppositions you are bringing to the text so I don’t know.
Canuck BC
Which presuppositions?
David: Thats what I don’t know. I don’t recall ever interacting with you before. I was suggesting that when we read a text we bring to it presuppositions. So for example, an Arminian would read Musculus differently than say you or me. Some one who denies that God has any true love for the non-elect would read it differently again. So imagine someone who says God never ever loves the non-elect, and by love we mean affection, disposition etc, he or she may read Musculus with a gamit of emotions, confusion, anger, frustration, denial, rejection, etc etc. Not knowing what your assumptions are, I cant answer your question of whether you are misunderstanding Musculus or whether he is wrong and your points valid. Make sense? Thats all I was saying.

Hope that helps,
David
Gebruikersavatar
Bert Mulder
Berichten: 9086
Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
Contacteer:

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Bert Mulder »

While I have not studied Musculus, I would be very wary of anything he has to say. Unlike Flynn pretends to say, he was not a major refomer, and known for his support of paedocommunion.

How can someone that has not come to an understanding of the faith discern the Lord`s body.
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Flynn
Berichten: 90
Lid geworden op: 21 mar 2007, 11:25

Re: The Reformed Doctrine of General Non-electing Love

Bericht door Flynn »

G'day Burt,

Here are some of the comments from Calvin which I have posted at the C&C blog along with a brief bio:

Calvin’s esteem of Musculus:

LETTER 191 TO WOLFGANG MUSCULUS
ANXIETY REGARDING THE CHURCHES OF
GERMANY —
ADVICE TO MUSCULUS. GENEVA,
21st April 1547.

…Adieu, most upright brother, and one dear to me from the bottom of my heart, as also your fellow-ministers, all of whom you will very affectionately salute in my name. May the Lord Jesus be present with you, guide you by his Spirit, and bless your holy labors. You will also convey to your family my best greeting. — Yours, John Calvin

LETTER 255 TO WOLFGANG MUSCULUS
PROHIBITION OF THE VAUDOIS CONFERENCES — REMONSTRANCES ON THE INTOLERANCE OF THE BERNESE MINISTERS TOWARDS THOSE OF FRANCE.
GENEVA, 28th Nov. 1549.

…From my confidence in your friendship, I expostulate the more freely with you and my friend Haller. For I am persuaded that some things which trouble me are displeasing to you also. But however that may be, I hope you will put a just and friendly interpretation on these complaints. Adieu, most excellent and accomplished man, and my revered brother in the Lord. May God keep you and your family, and be ever present with you and guide you! — Yours, John Calvin.

Brief Biography:

Wolfgang Musculus, born in a small town of Lorraine, and of an obscure family, raised himself by his talents, and the varied range of his accomplishments, to a place among the most distinguished men of his time. He cultivated with success music, poetry, and theology; was converted to the gospel in a convent by the perusal of the writings of Luther; gained the friendship of Capito and Bucer, and quitted Strasbourg in 1531, with a view to the discharge of the functions of the ministry in the church of Augsbourg. Driven from that city in 1548, by the proclamation of the Interim, he withdrew at first to Zurich, and afterwards to Berne, where he died in 1563. His numerous manuscripts, as well as those of Abraham Musculus his son, are reserved in the Library of Zoffingue. — Melch. Adam, Vitoe Theol. Germ., page 367.

David: I dont know about major reformer. Can I ask, who, in your opinion was a major Reformer? Bullinger? Zwingli? Luther?

A few other things, I have yet to read the sections where he affirms infant-communion, so I wont comment on that. I dont think that even if he did he can be just discarded. Further, Richard Muller devotes a whole chapter to him in his Christ and the Decree. Muller also cites him repeatedly in his other works for such things as being one of the sources of Covenant and Federal theology. Musculus was a well-respected commentator, friend of Calvin, Reformer at Berne. He is significant, it is just folk like us have lost a proper historical consciousness of him.

And what is more, apart from the infant-communion thing--which I have only heard from secondary sources on the WWW--his theology on the love of God is exactly the same as Calvin, Polanus, down to a' Brakel.

Take care,
David
Plaats reactie