God’s Love is not unconditional. Nowhere in the Bible is the word, unconditional, used in any context. Yet this saying is repeated by pastor and layperson alike. While it may not seem to have any noticeable negative impact in the churches today, it does lay the groundwork for undermining the great doctrinal pillars of our faith which can cause enormous damage to the churches in the near future. It distorts the Doctrine of Election, Doctrine of Eternal Security, Doctrine of Salvation, and Doctrine of Divine Judgment. This falsehood is usually perpetuated along with the Once Saved Always Saved heresy. I appeal to the reader to use simplistic reasoning at first to refute this falsehood:
- Unconditional Love is mentioned nowhere in the Bible. We are people of the Bible, right? sola scriptura
- If God’s Love were unconditional why didn’t the apostles tell us about it as plainly as theologians tell us today?
- You have to ignore most of the conditional “if” statements in the New Testament (over 50 of them!)
This falsehood is a foundation for the demonic doctrine of Universal Salvation:
“Universal reconciliation, also called universal salvation or sometimes simply universalism, is the doctrine or belief of some Christians that all will receive salvation, regardless of belief, because of the love and mercy of God.” Universal Salvation Explained
Some attribute the roots of “unconditional love” with the German psychologist, psychoanalyst, author and devout atheist, Erich Fromm, in his book The Art of Loving. It is also noted as a negative reference in 1751 to the Moravian heresy. As a less worthy usage was during the hippie movement of the 60s, who meant it to mean what the Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young song said, “love the one you are with” in the sexual revolution sense. Some theologians say that God’s love is unconditional based on the theological concepts of “common grace” or “beneficent love” (implied by Matthew 5:45) and “prevenient grace (rooted in Arminian theology as a rationale for how totally depraved humanity can reach out to God). A more prevalent and invasive argument for “God’s Love Is Unconditional” can be attributed to some of the main points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace. Unconditional Love is similar to the early Church heresy of Antinomianism. Antinomianism holds that the Covenant of Grace was not established based on conditions. It holds that the doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace. Hence, this modern unconditional love gospel persisting in our churches today is really a form of antinomianism. Furthermore, some early Church Fathers associate a form of antinomianism with the Nicolaitans errors mentioned in Revelation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism
“But this thou hast that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans which I also hate” (KJV Rev 2:6; also v 15).
This subject will provoke us to diverge to the heart of the conflict between Arminianism and Calvinism, one of the major theological disagreements within the Protestant Reformation Movement. But more needs to be said regarding the subject of unconditional love within the modern churches, and not let it bog down into the incredible volumes of books written about Arminianism and Calvinism.
It is not just the principle of unconditional love (or UL as it will be subsequently referred to as) that we are concerned with, but rather how it relates to the Gospel message, conversion, and the ensuing life of the believer.
Mostly, this term is used by Evangelical proponents of UL in relation to the security of the believer after conversion, called the “unconditional security of the believer”. Hence, the believer may suffer a loss of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ, and not loss of salvation at the Great White Throne Judgment. This thinking is also referred to in modern Christian jargon as “once saved, always saved“, and again this beckons us to the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism. But we defer for a moment. This term is also used for those who delve too far into the doctrine of election. They say believers have received electing love unconditionally. Since we had no part in electing ourselves, and God surely elected us, then they say God’s election proves that God’s love unconditional if only for those who are the subjects of this election. Technically, the word unconditional cannot be valid unless it were possible for something to be conditional. Then you could say one or the other, regardless of being right or wrong. Since election occurred before we were born, it is not possible that it can be termed unconditional, since it was not possible for it to be conditional since we were not born yet. All that can be said is that we were elected based on God’s predetermination.
It is also increasingly being used in the context of the Gospel message itself, which makes the love of God in Christ seem more of a mystery in the same way we are supposed to hold the doctrine of the Incarnation as a mystery (how God came from eternity into history and back to eternity again). Radio Bible Class (RBC), an adherent of this unconditional love of God says:
“We insist that God’s love is unconditional, but we recognize that there is a mystery respecting the relationship of God’s love to our responsibility (and free will). Both aspects are essential.”
If the so-called gospel message including UL is mysterious in some ways, then how can we boldly and confidently proclaim it if we aren’t exactly sure how to define it or explain it? We must introduce some element of doubt in Gospel hearers to be fair about our limits in understanding the UL in the context of salvation. Is it surprising then that the gospel message has changed:
- The old Gospel message: “Repent and believe the Gospel.”
- The new Gospel message: “God loves you no matter what you do.”
A very popular online resource, “Bible Study Tools”, also subscribes to this UL theology in What Does it Mean That God’s Love Is Unconditional? It says there:
Nothing-absolutely nothing-can separate us from God’s love (Romans 8:35-39)!
This scripture is used quite often to affirm UL theology. But you have to quote it incorrectly to do so. Nowhere does it say NOTHING can separate us from the love of God. It does give examples of things that cannot separate us from God’s love, but it does not say NOTHING. If the meaning were NOTHING, then that would include rebellion, unbelief, turning away from Christ, living in sin, etc. This section only focuses on things external to the believer that cannot separate them from the Love of God: trouble, death, spiritual and physical beings. This is quite a lapse in not clearly understanding these scriptures.
Finally, regarding the conversion aspect of UL, it forces us to delineate boundary lines between faith and works. For the unconditional love of God logically forces us to remove any semblance of work or effort on our part in our acceptance with God. So that is why the gospel message leaves out the word, repent, for repent implies works on our part. “God loves you” is much more compatible with the UL proponents. Yet, some of these UL proponents do say repentance is required but they do not attempt to reconcile it with the UL of God. And some other UL proponents try to reconcile repentance with salvation by saying that the repentance is forced on us by God, kind of in line with one of the 5 points of Calvinism: irresistible grace.
Many UL proponents rely on a few scriptures to argue for UL of God:
- The story of the prodigal son (Luke 15)
- Romans 5:8: But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
- 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.
- Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
The first argument is the least convincing of the three, for it actually would be an argument against UL if they really considered it truthfully. The prodigal son story, they say, illustrates how God reaches out to us without us coming to Him first. They quote the part that talks about how the Father runs to meet the son without the son walking to meet the father. What they fail to notice, intentionally or not, is that the son had a change of mind first which moved the Father to have compassion on him and run to his son. There was a response on the son’s part that moved the Father to compassion.
The second and third arguments are the primary ones used by UL proponents. Romans 5:8 speaks about God commending His love toward us while we were not only not seeking Him, but were actually opposed to Him! And it is also true to say that this act of God in commending His love toward us was not moved by any action on our part. These might be strong arguments for UL if it were not for the word, “commendeth”. It says God commends His Love toward sinners, not gives it to them. There is an implied condition here: you must accept the gift of God’s love for it to be meaningful. While it speaks about the offer here, the receiving of this great gift offer is the part that matters:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I can concede that an unqualified “commendeth” is a form of unconditionality, but to jump to the conclusion that God’s Love Is Unconditional is unjustifiable. This seems very presumptuous on their part.
The 3rd argument is based on a promise in Hebrews 13:5 where it is written, “…I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” This NT scripture references the OT in Deuteronomy 31:6 where it is written, “Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” Again, the main problem here is taking one scripture verse out of context. In Deuteronomy, Moses said this to encourage the Israelites for their upcoming trek across the Jordan river to conquer the inhabitants of Canaan. This new generation of Israelites was an obedient people and hence the promise was made in the light of that fact. It is the same in the NT where the writer of Hebrews was seeking to encourage the believers by assuring them of God’s continued help, and we know the context was to believers because of the subsequent scripture (Hebrews 13:6) that says, “So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.” Only a believer would say the Lord is my helper. God can be counted on to not forsake us if we continue our walk with Him in faith.
The 4th argument is probably the best UL proponent argument, but again an understanding of the words and the ensuing conditions that apply negate the UL position one more time. While God so loved the world, His Love is only manifested in the ones who believe in His Son. God so love the world, He gave, and to those who respond in faith, He saves: a conditional inference. Then there is the word, “world”. Etymology comes into play here. It comes from the Greek word, “cosmos”. Cosmos refers to the earth, the heavens surrounding the earth, and everything in the earth. Rather than casting it all away when it turned out to be evil, God decided to act in redemption here to salvage what He could from the Great Fall. It is a supreme act of God’s redeeming character on display here. God is going to make the best out of a bad situation in spite of man’s failure, rather than casting it all away and starting over again, which was His prerogative to do so if He chose.
Now for the great debate of the Protestant Reformation Movement: Arminianism and Calvinism. If I wrote exhaustively about this subject as many others have done, my point would be lost somewhere in it. So I will be brief in addressing this debate and casting down the logic of both viewpoints because they both do err.
Armenians basically hold to the belief that salvation and the subsequent walk of faith is related to our works, leading to the mixture of Law and Grace, a Judaism heresy. Calvinists believe that works have nothing to do with faith, thereby providing a logical basis to proceed to the UL heresy. What both miss is this: Whose works are we talking about: man’s or God’s?
The whole debate assumes we are talking about man’s works apart from God. The Calvinists are right in this regard about getting saved, but then err later because they assume the works in the life of the believer that follow are also man’s works apart from God so they logically proceed to minimize references to the works in the life of the believer. The whole problem with both viewpoints is unbelief on their parts: they cannot see by faith the work of God in their life, so they regard all works as their own. This is unbelief, pure and simple.
The works in the life of the believer are the works that God does in our life, for He is the one moving us and empowering us to do them, so boasting is gone if we have the right way to look at it, the right faith that says any good that I do I do by the power of God in my life, thereby making boasting of no effect while acknowledging the works of God in our life. God’s Works got me saved and God’s Works keep me saved. To God be the glory. And we do have access to these Godly Works by the Faith given to us when we first believed, so keep on believin’ so you can still keep on getting the God Works in your life! Oh what Grace this is! And after all isn’t that what Grace is: the God help in our lives, in our works, which by faith we see as His Works, for we are His Work in Jesus Christ!
Ephesians 2:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Consider Paul’s words:
NLT 1 Corinthians 15:10 “But whatever I am now, it is all because God poured out his special favor on me—and not without results. For I have worked harder than any of the other apostles; yet it was not I but God who was working through me by his grace.”
Furthermore, we are told that we need the Holy Spirit to do the work of killing the deeds of our old nature apart from our own efforts:
KJV Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
None of us perceives clearly how God works in our lives from within. But we must believe it is happening by faith at such times when we cannot perceive it.
John 3:8 New King James Version (NKJV) 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Phillipians 2:12-13
Famous people who are proponents of God’s unconditional love:
- James Dobson, focus on the family
- Charles Stanley
- RBC Ministries
Famous people who are opposed to God’s unconditional love:
- R. C. Sproul
- John MacArthur
Is God’s Love Unconditional? is an excerpt from R. C. Sproul’s book, “God’s Love: How the Infinite God Cares for His Children”. God’s Love is NOT “Unconditional” is a good video featuring opponents of unconditional love, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur. John MacArthur does speak about a type of “unconditional love” from God that shows his benevolence, also called “common grace. It is the constant love of God directed towards sinful man not willing that any should perish. It is His long-suffering towards man’s rebellion and his outward physical blessings on both saved and unsaved, best illustrated by Matthew 5:45:
John 3:8 New King James Version (NKJV) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
It is interesting to note that while some disagree with the “unconditional love of God”, they also embrace the Calvinist position of “unconditional election”. For instance, John MacArthur is opposed to the “God’s unconditional love”, but accepting of “unconditional election”. John MacArthur’s understanding of “unconditional election” is somewhat different from other reformed, Calvinist adherents that would also support “unconditional love” as a result of “unconditional election”. See the John MacArthur Is Not Reformed article.
It is the position of this author that neither “God’s unconditional love”, nor “unconditional election” are valid Christian doctrines. They both do seriously err from the Truth of the Gospel. They are simply man-made doctrines.
Leave a Reply