This is from an article on Divine Impassibility, which is a pretty good article overall. Paul Helm is an arch-Calvinist theologian.
The relevant point here is that a Calvinist must sooner or later come down to saying that God was never, ever loving except in some technically accidental way (perhaps!) to the non-elect–otherwise we would expect God to persist in saving the non-elect from sin in order to fulfill His love to them and so be glorified by having His love return from them fulfilled. Of course, the constancy of Calvinistic non-love to the non-elect would fit divine impassibility in some senses; but because Paul Helm is committed to a notion where God may act without love toward an object, he thus explains God’s love as being a function of the situation or condition of the creaturely recipient. The correct exposition would be that the mode of God’s love (and justice and wisdom etc.) depends on human circumstances, God’s purposes in sovereign relation to those circumstances, as a function of the situation or condition of the recipient. Otherwise we have the absurdity of God’s justice and wisdom being expressed or not according to human circumstances.
God’s wrath, everyone agrees, is such an expression, which is why He can set aside doing wrath or never do wrath at all to some objects. But then, God is not essentially wrath; nor is God omnimalevolent (to put it another way). His wrath must be an expression of His essential attributes, and not only a selection of them either: God’s wrath cannot be limited to being an expression of His justice and His wisdom being fulfilled in relation to the object but not His love being fulfilled in relation to the object.
To try to teach otherwise – which one way or another the Calvinist (like Paul Helm) must do – is to deny divine impassibility as Paul Helm himself (I agree) rightly understands it.
(His article is otherwise quite good and worth reading on the topic.)