R.C. Sproul objects – I should say strongly objects – to the notion of unconditional love. In a popular video discussion, Sproul was asked, “When everyone is talking about the love of God, and God loves me just as I am, how would you respond?” He answered,

The kingdom of God is not Mr. Rogers’s neighborhood. I think there are few things more dangerous than preachers out there preaching that God loves everybody unconditionally because the message that is heard by the people who hear that is there are no conditions. I can continue to live just as I’m living in full rebellion against God, and I have nothing to worry about because there aren’t any conditions that I have to meet. God loves me unconditionally. I don’t have to repent, I don’t have to come to Jesus, I don’t have to leave my life of sin. No conditions, no strings attached. God loves me just the way I am. He’s glad that I turned out so nicely…

I don’t disagree with this. At least, not entirely.

In 2011, Tullian Tchividjian (Billy Graham’s grandson) published his book Jesus + Nothing = Everything.In 2013, he published One-Way Love: Inexhaustible Grace for an Exhausted World. Tchividjian is a neo-Calvinist, definitely not orthodox (consider his “Upside-Down Christianity” described here). However, Tchividjian has borrowed heavily from classic Calvinist teachings to describe God’s unconditional love. Tullian likes to use edgy language in his descriptions of God’s grace. For example,

Grace is a divine vulgarity that stands caution on its head. It refuses to play it safe and lay it up. Grace is recklessly generous, uncomfortably promiscuous. It doesn’t use sticks, carrots, or time cards. It doesn’t keep score. As Robert Capon puts it, “Grace works without requiring anything on our part. It’s not expensive. It’s not even cheap. It’s free.” It refuses to be controlled by our innate sense of fairness, reciprocity, and evenhandedness. It defies logic. It has nothing to do with earning, merit, or deservedness. It is opposed to what is owed. It doesn’t expect a return on investments. It is a liberating contradiction between what we deserve and what we get. Grace is unconditional acceptance given to an undeserving person by an unobligated giver. (from One-way Love)

In an article called “What is Grace,” Tullian said,

Grace is love that seeks you out when you have nothing to give in return. Grace is love coming at you that has nothing to do with you. Grace is being loved when you are unlovable…. The cliché definition of grace is “unconditional love.” It is a true cliché, for it is a good description of the thing. Let’s go a little further, though. Grace is a love that has nothing to do with you, the beloved. It has everything and only to do with the lover. Grace is irrational in the sense that it has nothing to do with weights and measures. It has nothing to do with my intrinsic qualities or so-called “gifts” (whatever they may be). It reflects a decision on the part of the giver, the one who loves, in relation to the receiver, the one who is loved, that negates any qualifications the receiver may personally hold…. Grace is one-way love.

He went on to say that our relationship with God is not impacted in any way by our actions.

Jesus came to liberate us from the weight of having to make it on our own, from the demand to measure up. He came to emancipate us from the burden to get it all right, from the obligation to fix ourselves, find ourselves, and free ourselves. Jesus came to release us from the slavish need to be right, rewarded, regarded, and respected. Because Jesus came to set the captives free, life does not have to be a tireless effort to establish ourselves, justify ourselves, and validate ourselves.

Are there shades of truth in what Tullian says about God’s grace and love? No doubt. By definition, grace is God’s goodness and saving power given to people who manifestly do not deserve it. And, I wouldn’t deny that God’s love isn’t free and unconditional to His elect – as Spurgeon preached so eloquently in a sermon entitled “The Unconditional Love of God to His Elect.”

But you get the distinct impression, not only from what Tullian says but especially from how he says it, that he is carving out space for people to fall and fail.

God hates sin. It doesn’t matter if the sin is committed by a believer or an unbeliever. God cannot abide it. He doesn’t give it a pass. The grace of God empowers you to overcome sin and live godly in Christ Jesus.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (Titus 2:11-12)

But this scandalous grace, unconditional love kind of “gospel” teaches that believers are free to fail, free to fall. It speaks of grace as if it were the cleanup crew for when you have a spill. Tullian turns the grace of God into lasciviousness. I agree with Sproul; this is a dangerous message, one we should reject. But I would also argue that the “U” in the TULIP – “Unconditional Election” sends a similarly dangerous message.

Is God’s love unconditional? Not in the sense that God makes no demands. Not in the sense that God is like a doting, celestial Santa Claus who pats us on the head and turns a blind eye to our bad behavior. But God’s love is unconditional in that He has committed Himself to love us regardless of our failures and sins. God loves us enough to transform us but never becomes disillusioned by us or gives up on us or decides to part ways with us. So, the love of God is both unconditional and conditional.

I want to be just in my critiques of the Calvinist TULIP, and I refuse to overstate my objections or caricature Calvinism. But the idea of “Unconditional Election” also gives the impression that the sinner has no responsibility and need not do anything in response to the gospel. Election is not conditioned on any response of mine – whether faith or repentance – and therefore, I need not repent or believe. Indeed, hyper-Calvinism approaches this kind of extreme.

In fairness, Calvinism teaches man’s responsibility to repent and believe. In a recorded lecture on unconditional election, Sproul carefully qualifies what he means by “unconditional.”

What are we talking about when we use the term unconditional election? It doesn’t mean that God will save people no matter whether they come to faith or not come to faith. There are conditions that God decrees for salvation, not the least of which is putting one’s personal trust in Christ. But that is a condition for justification, and the doctrine of election is something else. It’s related to the doctrine of justification, but when we’re talking about unconditional election, we’re talking in a very narrow confine here of the doctrine of election itself.

I’m glad Sproul explains this, but it gets to the heart of my objection to this particular point in the TULIP. In fact, I would criticize “Unconditional Election” for the very same reasons that Sproul criticizes “unconditional love:”

…the message that is heard by the people who hear that is, there are no conditions. I can continue to live just as I’m living in full rebellion against God, and I have nothing to worry about because there aren’t any conditions that I have to meet. God loves me unconditionally. I don’t have to repent, I don’t have to come to Jesus, I don’t have to leave my life of sin. No conditions, no strings attached. God loves me just the way I am…

Sproul suggests that a better term would be “sovereign election.” I definitely prefer that. I agree that God does not save us because He sees (or foresees) any good thing in any of us. But when we call sinners to repentance, there should be no hint, no suggestion, no implication that sinners are free to live their lives and add a little Jesus to a life lived for self.

Sproul explains, “There are conditions that God decrees for salvation, not the least of which is putting one’s personal trust in Christ. But that is a condition for justification…” Frankly, this isn’t very clear. I haven’t found anywhere that Calvinism teaches faith and repentance as a condition for justification. The London Baptist Confession of 1689 doesn’t say this. Consider the first two paragraphs under “Of Justification.”

Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

If we look at election, salvation, justification, redemption, and so forth from God’s perspective, we agree that God doesn’t justify or elect us because of any good thing He sees in us. In that sense, the whole work of salvation (including God’s choice) is unconditional. We also know that God does not save a man who does not repent or believe the gospel. So then, there are conditions that must be met.

This goes to the heart of my objection. Calvinists want to draw clear lines between their view of election and what they would see as the Arminian view of election, which Leighton Flowers describes as the “simple foresight-faith view” where “God looks through the corridors of time and sees certain individuals who act in faith and therefore elects those individuals to salvation.” Flowers points out that this is somewhat of a caricature of what non-Calvinists believe about election. I agree, even if I don’t entirely agree with Flowers’ view of election.

If I’m honest, I have to say that I can’t entirely resolve the apparent conflict between God’s perspective and our own. As we move through this series, no doubt some will see this is a cop-out, but I continue to argue that we are up against a paradox.

God doesn’t save us because of anything good He sees in us – that is true. As Douglas Wilson explains, “It does not mean that God had no conditions or reasons for doing what He did. It simply means He found no conditions or reasons in man for what He did.” (Easy Chairs, Hard Words, p. 58) But I would hasten to add that it also doesn’t mean that God has no conditions or demands He places on those He saves. Clearly, repentance and faith are conditions that must be met by the sinner. Election is unconditional in that God doesn’t save sinners because certain conditions have been met. Yet, certain conditions must be met, or God will not save the sinner.

I believe God sovereignly elects men to salvation, and we can say with certainty that those who repent and believe the gospel are those God has elected. I would never assure a person – nor would I ever suggest the possibility – that they are saved if they won’t repent and believe the gospel. In other words, I believe (again) that we have a paradox here. I don’t think we can rightly or precisely resolve that paradox.

I know for a fact that my non-Calvinist friends would insist that salvation is of the Lord, entirely, from beginning to end. They would not rely on a decision they have made for Christ, on a prayer they have prayed, or on a set of doctrines they have embraced. They rest in Jesus Christ alone. They have received Him by grace alone and through faith alone. They do not rely on themselves at all.

As for Calvinists, I believe they would say that the sinner must repent, believe the gospel, and rest in Christ’s finished work alone. In other words, they believe some conditions must be met.

And I’m content for the rest to remain unresolved. But I struggle with the term “Unconditional Election” because, as Sproul said, “the message that is heard by the people who hear that is, there are no conditions.”