I have a unread copy on my bookshelf. May read it one day if I ever have the time. Fairly dense & complex, I’ve been told. From memory someone said Carson divides up love into categories (so that it excuses ECT??). Could be interesting.
Carson: 1. The peculiar love of the Father for the son, and of the Son for the Father
2. God’s providential love over all that he has made
3. God’s salvific stance toward the fallen world
4. God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.
5. God’s love is sometimes conditional upon the obedience of His people.
Agreed. If God’s love for me was dependent on my obedience, I would be completely screwed. (And what is with this “sometimes” stuff. It makes God sound kinda flaky.)
I got to this part and it made me laugh. 3 little words that say so much.
I’ve thought to myself how can love be this complicated? What is wrong with applying the definitions of love that God has given us, like the one in 1 Cor. 13. Are there passages that talk of lesser love and condone having it? The implication of varying degrees of love, that I can see, is that we rationalize why we don’t have to love others or why God doesn’t. This seems no muy bueno to me or in Tom’s great words, “a mess.”
I was only adding that Don Carson is the author–a detail accidentally omitted in your initial post. (Don’t worry about the “monograph” thing. It’s the non-fiction equivalent of a novella.)
To be fair, I expect from other things he’s written that he means the mode or form of God’s love is sometimes and/or in some ways conditional upon the obedience of His people. Which isn’t anything controversial: Calvs, Arms and Kaths can all agree with that.
We’re going to disagree on DC’s application of the concept of “God’s people”, of course.