40 history….”83 Van Til goes on to say that Hoeksema responded by saying His love was a wrath of love.84 Certainly one would strenuously object to such as it has no basis in the Scriptures. God’s eternal love for His own is not a “wrath of love” because ὀ ́ργη and ἀγάπη are complete opposites. Most limited redemptionists, however, indicate that God’s love is a distinguishing love.85 Warfield limits the love of God in John 3:16 and yet entitles his chapter “God’s Immeasurable Love.” His qualitative view of the world, that is, God’s love, was not for everyone, but for only those believing.86 The question may be asked, if God’s love is a distinguishing love ultimately limited to the elect, how then can it be immeasurable? Nicole feels as if God’s love would be wasted if He loved the non-elect.87 But even a mother will still love a reprobate son who has been disowned and rejected. To say that God’s love is limited because He does not love fallen angels is more than Scripture will allow, but Nicole is sure that God does not love them.88 Angels are not beneficiary heirs of salvation, but this fact does not preclude that God does love them. After all, the scriptures do not say that God loves the elect angels, but it is obvious that He does love them. As Lightner so succinctly says, “The crux of the matter is, ‘Does God love all men or does He not?” 89 The Scriptures so indicate. Though some would say that ἀγάπη in John 3:16 is limited to the design of applying salvation to the elect, yet the verse does indeed say γάρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸυ κόσμου. This is a fact within itself. The condition of reception comes on the response to “the only begotten son” and not on the love of God. God would love the world whether anyone was saved. After all, He loved the world before anyone was saved. Martin Luther said he would rather have the word “world” in John 3:16 than that “God loved Martin Luther,” because of the fact that there may be another Martin Luther.90 Mark 10:21 records the words that Christ loved (ἀγαπάω) the rich young ruler. He was unsaved and there is no Scriptural basis for saying that he was ever saved. If it be objected that God did not love Esau because He hated him the reply
83
Cornelius Van Til’s review of Reformed Dogmatics in The Westminster Theological Journal, XXXI (November,
1968), 92. 93. A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), 282-83; Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? pp. 68-69; Nicole, “The Case for Definite Atonement,” 203; Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, 505-22. 86 Ibid, 509. 87 Nicole, “The Case for Definite Atonement,” 203. 88 Ibid. 89 Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died—A Case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), 111. 90 As quoted by David Scaer, “The Nature and Extent of the Atonement in Lutheran Theology,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 10:4 (Fall, 1967): 185. 84Ibid, 85