You hear it said a lot... that God loves us unconditionally.
But is that really so?
On one hand you can say so as His great gift of grace and salvation is there for anyone who will accept it. We do not need to scrub up first before we come to Him. He takes us as we are.
Yet on the other hand...
Everyone is judged eventually, and those who did not accept His gift of salvation will end up, according to what we read in the Bible, being cast into a Lake of Fire.
Does that mean that God stopped loving the ones that He condemned to this eternal end? After all, if that is truly their end without a thought to any rehabilitation (no more chances of getting out of it), is this still unconditional love for them?
Or does His love have a condition... that you must accept His solution for salvation?
I would be interested to know how other Christians make sense of this?
I've been wondering this one for a while...
-
Judah
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
Here I am, talking to myself it would seem! 
While cruising around the web, I came across two interesting articles that related to my question above.
For those who might be interested, here they are...
http://www.epm.org/articles/uncond.html
http://www.epm.org/articles/uncond2.html
I have not read them critically myself yet... but I will.
Meanwhile, if there is anyone "out there" who has some of their own thinking to add to this, I am still very interested to hear what that might be.
Otherwise I shall just plod along here on my own.
While cruising around the web, I came across two interesting articles that related to my question above.
For those who might be interested, here they are...
http://www.epm.org/articles/uncond.html
http://www.epm.org/articles/uncond2.html
I have not read them critically myself yet... but I will.
Meanwhile, if there is anyone "out there" who has some of their own thinking to add to this, I am still very interested to hear what that might be.
Otherwise I shall just plod along here on my own.
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
These passages should help a bit:
Ezekiel 18:23—Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
Ezekiel 18:32—For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
Ezekiel 33:11—Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.
God literally pleads with Israel to turn back from their self-destructive course of action and be saved. The New Testament also says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). And in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 it says, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Scripture leads us to conclude God loves everyone, and desires all to be with Him. Yet God's hands are tied because He has allowed everyone their freedom, and since God is Holy, God can't leave sin unchecked. So while He desires all to be with Him, He can't ignore sin and nor will He force Himself onto us which would perhaps be classified as "divine rape."
For more on this I recommend reading over a debate: Craig-Bradley Debate: Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Kurieuo.
Ezekiel 18:23—Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
Ezekiel 18:32—For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
Ezekiel 33:11—Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.
God literally pleads with Israel to turn back from their self-destructive course of action and be saved. The New Testament also says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). And in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 it says, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Scripture leads us to conclude God loves everyone, and desires all to be with Him. Yet God's hands are tied because He has allowed everyone their freedom, and since God is Holy, God can't leave sin unchecked. So while He desires all to be with Him, He can't ignore sin and nor will He force Himself onto us which would perhaps be classified as "divine rape."
For more on this I recommend reading over a debate: Craig-Bradley Debate: Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Judah
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
Yes, those verses do help.
And I found the debate to be a very interesting and worthwhile read. It has helped me understand the apparent contradiction which was the basis of my question.
I had not before seen my question as related to "If God is holy and righteous, how can He let anyone enter heaven?" ...to which I already know answers.
Dr Craig's assertion that people, who of their own choice refuse God's gift of salvation, have sent themselves to hell provides the perceptual shift required to appreciate that God's unconditional love is not denied by the existence and purpose of hell.
As something by way of an analogy... I see a similar thing again when I think how my love for my young son is not lessened in any way by the consequences he brings upon himself by his own stubborn disobedience, not even when I am the provider those consequences!
The hopelessly eternal nature of hell is addressed by Dr Craig's suggestion, in line with his position that people send themselves there, that hell is locked from the inside. That there may be no rehabilitation is again due to the sinner's ongoing chosen position (just as my son's continued disobedience results in continued consequences).
Well, those are all interesting thoughts and it is certainly more compatible with my experience of God as our loving Father to think how He doesn't want people going there, and even pleads with them to reconsider.
Your calling it "divine rape" should God force Himself upon us certainly puts it very plainly!
Thank you for pointing me that way.
And I found the debate to be a very interesting and worthwhile read. It has helped me understand the apparent contradiction which was the basis of my question.
I had not before seen my question as related to "If God is holy and righteous, how can He let anyone enter heaven?" ...to which I already know answers.
Dr Craig's assertion that people, who of their own choice refuse God's gift of salvation, have sent themselves to hell provides the perceptual shift required to appreciate that God's unconditional love is not denied by the existence and purpose of hell.
As something by way of an analogy... I see a similar thing again when I think how my love for my young son is not lessened in any way by the consequences he brings upon himself by his own stubborn disobedience, not even when I am the provider those consequences!
The hopelessly eternal nature of hell is addressed by Dr Craig's suggestion, in line with his position that people send themselves there, that hell is locked from the inside. That there may be no rehabilitation is again due to the sinner's ongoing chosen position (just as my son's continued disobedience results in continued consequences).
Well, those are all interesting thoughts and it is certainly more compatible with my experience of God as our loving Father to think how He doesn't want people going there, and even pleads with them to reconsider.
Your calling it "divine rape" should God force Himself upon us certainly puts it very plainly!
Thank you for pointing me that way.
-
Judah
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
While reading on this subject, in the back of my mind there remained some discomfort with the idea so frequently expressed by many Christians - that God's love is unconditional.
To make the simple statement "God's love for us is unconditional" and not qualify it any further does, I think, cause problems for us later.
I believe this is where I tripped up and got to wondering in the very first place.
I like this response from Paul Martin, Eternal Perspective Ministries volunteer, to the idea of "God's unconditional love".
I thought I would put it here for others who may be interested.
The question:
Is "unconditional love" a moral contradiction?
Many people and many pastors and Christians are using this term these days to attempt to describe God's love for us. It seems God's love must operate within a moral framework. God cannot love evil. So then how could His love ever be unconditional? What would compel us to repent if His love for us was unconditional? His love is the greatest of all things, it is unfailing, but unconditional?
The response:
You raise some good points concerning a perhaps too casual use of the term "unconditional." Typically a term like this is well-defined initially within a specific context, but then is repeated without the same attention to detail. I think that we could say that God's love is unconditional in the sense that it can never be discouraged and that many of its benefits are experienced by "the just and the unjust." But that is very different from the idea that God offers personal relationship unconditionally; that must take into account who God is and who we are. Acceptance of the Gospel is the condition for experiencing the love of God as His own child! To think otherwise is to slip into the error of universalism which violates the nature of relationship, trivializes the life and death of Jesus, and rejects the Biblical teaching on the reality of Hell, in favor of a "they all lived happily ever after" fairy tale.
We probably have to interact with people to find out what they mean when terms like this are not clarified. I wish I could tell you that the explanation will usually be helpful, but that is probably optimistic; on the other hand, it may open the door to God's light and truth if we can see the person, as well as the issue.
[Permission to publish is granted: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, http://www.epm.org ]
To make the simple statement "God's love for us is unconditional" and not qualify it any further does, I think, cause problems for us later.
I believe this is where I tripped up and got to wondering in the very first place.
I like this response from Paul Martin, Eternal Perspective Ministries volunteer, to the idea of "God's unconditional love".
I thought I would put it here for others who may be interested.
The question:
Is "unconditional love" a moral contradiction?
Many people and many pastors and Christians are using this term these days to attempt to describe God's love for us. It seems God's love must operate within a moral framework. God cannot love evil. So then how could His love ever be unconditional? What would compel us to repent if His love for us was unconditional? His love is the greatest of all things, it is unfailing, but unconditional?
The response:
You raise some good points concerning a perhaps too casual use of the term "unconditional." Typically a term like this is well-defined initially within a specific context, but then is repeated without the same attention to detail. I think that we could say that God's love is unconditional in the sense that it can never be discouraged and that many of its benefits are experienced by "the just and the unjust." But that is very different from the idea that God offers personal relationship unconditionally; that must take into account who God is and who we are. Acceptance of the Gospel is the condition for experiencing the love of God as His own child! To think otherwise is to slip into the error of universalism which violates the nature of relationship, trivializes the life and death of Jesus, and rejects the Biblical teaching on the reality of Hell, in favor of a "they all lived happily ever after" fairy tale.
We probably have to interact with people to find out what they mean when terms like this are not clarified. I wish I could tell you that the explanation will usually be helpful, but that is probably optimistic; on the other hand, it may open the door to God's light and truth if we can see the person, as well as the issue.
[Permission to publish is granted: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, http://www.epm.org ]
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
I'm happy to see it helped you out with this issue...
Kurieuo.
I'm not sure I entirely grasp what the problem is in saying God's love is unconditional. Maybe one should distinguish between God's love for everyone (which is unconditional), from barriers that need to be removed in order for one to receive God's love? Because barriers may exist (e.g., sin, or our freedom to reject love), such does not mean God's love for us is conditional. To extend your analogy above, your love for your young son may be unconditional in that whatever he does you may still love him. Yet, he may choose to remove himself from it by moving away and severing all contact with you. Does this affect your love for him? No. It just means he's chosen not to accept it. I think it an important point not to mistake blockages to receiving God's love as meaning God's love is conditional.Judah wrote:While reading on this subject, in the back of my mind there remained some discomfort with the idea so frequently expressed by many Christians - that God's love is unconditional.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Judah
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:23 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
I see the problem I had with the idea of "unconditional love".
I had been thinking of it in a universalist sense, that to be unconditional it must be able to disregard or over-rule the barriers and blockages.
But that is not the case, as I now see by the extention of the analogy which makes it much clearer.
The close relationship is conditional on acceptance of the Gospel message, but it is the nonbeliever who has made the decision to forgo the relationship by not accepting it.
God continues to love, but the nonbeliever continues to reject.
To over-rule the nonbeliever's decision is tantamount to "divine rape" and to disregard it ignores the Gospel message altogether.
I think I have it sorted now. Thanks.
I had been thinking of it in a universalist sense, that to be unconditional it must be able to disregard or over-rule the barriers and blockages.
But that is not the case, as I now see by the extention of the analogy which makes it much clearer.
The close relationship is conditional on acceptance of the Gospel message, but it is the nonbeliever who has made the decision to forgo the relationship by not accepting it.
God continues to love, but the nonbeliever continues to reject.
To over-rule the nonbeliever's decision is tantamount to "divine rape" and to disregard it ignores the Gospel message altogether.
I think I have it sorted now. Thanks.