Thursday, May 16, 2013

Must God love me?

Jerry Walls gave a lecture at Houston Baptist U, available on YouTube, entitled “What’s Wrong with Calvinism?”

Towards the end of the lecture, Jerry said there are some things God can’t want to do. God can’t choose to love or not to love. For God, loving everyone is necessary rather than optional.

I’ve been a Calvinist for about 30 years. I’ve been a Christian for about 38 years. So I’ve had time to eternalize my theology. It isn’t just theoretical. It’s something I by, live with, live for.

So it’s good to let Jerry’s alternative sink in. What would be the impact on my devotional life if I thought God had to love me? How would that change my view of God? How would that affect how I relate God?

Well, it would move God off-center. God would cease to be the central figure in my life and heart. If I shared Jerry’s view of God, I wouldn’t have a devotional life.

Believing that God loves me because he must, because he cannot not love me, rather than loving me in spite of who I am, would instantly erase my gratitude. Why be grateful for something I can take for granted?

Frankly, I can’t respect a God who has to love me. God would be a poor judge of character if he loved me because he had to. I’m not that lovable. I don’t deserve it. I love God, not because he has to love me, but because he chose to love me despite my utter unworthiness.

There’s a sense in which I might still appreciate God’s irrepressible love, in the way P. T. Barnum enjoyed the fact that a sucker was born every minute.

At best, God would be a necessary presupposition, like time or oxygen.  Mind you, there’s a sense in which God is a necessary presupposition. But he’s far more than just a background condition.

A God who loves me because he has to reminds me of those pitiful women who are stuck on losers. They keep going back to the loser boyfriend or abusive husband. They cannot not love the loser boyfriend or abusive husband.

That may also explain Jerry’s air of entitlement. His theism is a recipe for a church full of spoiled brats.  

5 comments:

  1. I'm slightly puzzled by your reasoning. Even if it is the case that God has to love everybody, that doesn't entail that we are lovable, in the sense that we're good persons. Isn't your view, that God chooses to love, the same in that respect, for on what basis would God choose to love anybody? If on the basis of his own nature, then I do not see any difference between the views. On either view God loves us despite our shortcomings, whether by a choice or not.
    "A God who loves me because he has to reminds me of those pitiful women who are stuck on losers. They keep going back to the loser boyfriend or abusive husband. They cannot not love the loser boyfriend or abusive husband."
    Is it any better if she chooses to love the loser or abuser?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kaffikjelen

      "I'm slightly puzzled by your reasoning. Even if it is the case that God has to love everybody, that doesn't entail that we are lovable, in the sense that we're good persons. Isn't your view, that God chooses to love, the same in that respect, for on what basis would God choose to love anybody? If on the basis of his own nature, then I do not see any difference between the views. On either view God loves us despite our shortcomings, whether by a choice or not."

      On Jerry's view, God doesn't choose to love us in spite of who we are. Therefore, there's nothing special about his loving us in spite of who we are. There is nothing gracious about that kind of love. Nothing remarkable. That is not a discriminate, independent action on God's part–where God makes a point of loving the unlovable. Where God singles out the wicked because they are wicked, to be objects of his mercy. Hence, there's nothing to be thankful for. The Bible stresses the alien quality of God's love for the wicked. How unexpected that is. Indeed, out of character–were it not for substitutionary atonement.

      "Is it any better if she chooses to love the loser or abuser?"

      That's not the alternative. The alternative is for her to have the independence to leave the loser.

      "A God who loves me because he has to reminds me of those pitiful women who are stuck on losers. They keep going back to the loser boyfriend or abusive husband. They cannot not love the loser boyfriend or abusive husband."
      Is it any better if she chooses to love the loser or abuser?

      Delete
    2. Frankly, I think Jerry's position is diabolical. I can just imagine the Devil telling God, "You have to love me!" A Satanic Gospel.

      Delete
  2. I am pretty new to this blog but loving it so far.

    I am a Canadian pastor who is a recovering Arminian - I crossed over to Calvinism 7 years ago while ministering as a pastor.

    On topic I find this whole video somewhat strange for other reasons than just his arguments.

    1) Can you present a theological position accurately by quoting secondary sources rather than Scripture themselves? Even if I was presenting the Arminian view I would try to show from Scripture why they believe what they believe.

    2) Can you take a presentation seriously (from someone with a phD) when they put silly cartoons with the opposing viewpoint to your own?

    3) Living in a socialist Country (Canada) we have a more muted view of freedom. Our enthusiasm for freedom being the highest intrinsic value seems to be very American Arminian in flavour. I see a direct correlation between the culture Christian values that are certainly not biblical Christians are automatically Republican, Founding Fathers valued freedom so it is what we must embrace in nationalistic fervour. I love America but I think you find very little of this Arminian zealousness regarding freedom outside of American movements.

    4) This guy basically listed all the great heroes of the faith as Calvinists - does this not give us pause to examine our own position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Both Arminians and Calvinists appeal to Scripture, so while you could show from Scripture why they believe what they believe, you would still need to quote prominent Arminians to show what exactly it is that they believe.

      2) Not really. Then again, isn't Jack Chick an Arminian? Hmmm

      3) I'm Canadian and a fan of l'aissez faire capitalism. It's pretty lonely.

      4) It depends. Some would also count people like Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Finney as heroes of the faith.

      Delete