Understanding God’s Compassion for All . . . And Our Own

One of the most persistent questions in theology is this: how do we bring together God’s sincere compassion for all sinners and His decision to save only some of them?

Scripture presents this to us in at least three ways. First, there are God’s indiscriminate offers of mercy to all. Second, there are declarations of His love for the world, such as John 3:16. Third, there are passages that speak of God’s compassion toward those who are never saved. These seem to pull in different directions. Either God does not truly have compassion for all, or He has compassion but cannot act on it.

This is not a minor difficulty. As A. A. Hodge noted, it is one of the strongest points pressed by Arminians against Calvinists. Robert Lewis Dabney also recognized that Calvinists have often struggled here. Because of that, he believed that this issue deserved another look.

Nor is this just a theoretical issue. When we look at any person and have compassion, we may ask, “Does God stand behind this compassion?”

Dabney offered a solution to this perplexing question in his article, “God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy: As Related to His Power, Wisdom, and Sincerity.” But his real contribution, I would suggest, lies deeper than he himself fully realized. He did not so much introduce a new principle as expose one already at work—and show how it ought to be applied more consistently.

The Problem: Collapsing Affection into Action
The difficulty arises from an assumption that feels intuitive but is false:

If an affection is real, one must act on it.

If God truly has compassion, then He must relieve the misery. If He does not relieve it, then compassion must not be there.

This assumption drives both sides:

  • The Arminian says: if God has compassion, He must act—so something must limit His action.
  • Some Calvinists reply: since God does not act, the compassion must not exist in that case.

Both accept the same premise. Both are mistaken.

What is needed is not a new theological distinction, but a clearer understanding of the structure of rational agency itself. Continue reading “Understanding God’s Compassion for All . . . And Our Own”

Calibrate Your Emotions to Reality

Emotions drive our lives. They are powerful forces that can impel us towards good activity. Unfortunately, they can also impel us toward destructive activity. Some of our best decisions and some of our worst decisions came out of strong emotions. Does it have to be this way?

Throughout the ages, philosophers, psychologists, and religious leaders have contemplated the problem of emotions. Here is a summation of their key finding: calibrate your emotions to reality. As Thomas Aquinas says when it comes to courage, “Hence it belongs to fortitude that man should moderate his fear according to reason, namely that he should fear what he ought, and when he ought, and so forth” (Q. 126, A. 2, 1718).

Our emotions may reflect reality, but they also may not. We do not need to take them at face value. Concretely:

  • If we are scared, it does not mean there is a real threat.
  • If we are sad, it does not mean that we have lost something.
  • If we are angry, it does not mean that there is an injustice.
  • If we are joyful, it does not mean that things are going well.

The reverse is also true. Continue reading “Calibrate Your Emotions to Reality”

Classic Resources for Reducing Frustration and Anger

“Marcus Aurelius had a vision for Rome, and this is NOT IT!” Thus thundered Maximus in the well-known movie Gladiator. It’s also something I kept saying to my wife over several weeks while reading Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Not because the line itself is profound, but because it kept forcing its way into my mind—and out of my mouth.

Most people know Marcus Aurelius because of Gladiator. Long before that movie, however, he was famous because of his life and because of his book Meditations. In essence, Meditations is a self-help book—one people are still reading 1,800 years after it was written. There is a simple explanation: it helps.

Marcus Aurelius wrote these reflections while defending the borders of the Roman Empire. The book consists of brief, self-contained passages drawn from Stoic philosophy. Each one is meant to retrain perception—to help Aurelius, and the reader, live peacefully with reality as it actually is rather than as one wishes it to be.

The central claim is uncompromising: “If you are pained about any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgment about it.” Frustration is something we supply. And—Marcus relentlessly insists—we have the power to judge differently. Meditations is a manual for learning how to do that, so that anger and resentment give way to tranquility.

A few examples show how this works.

When things go badly: “Remember, too, on every occasion that leads you to vexation to apply this principle: not that this is a misfortune, but that to bear it nobly is good fortune” (4.49).

When you don’t want to get up early: “In the morning when you rise unwillingly, let this thought be present. I am rising to the work of a human being. Why then am I dissatisfied if I am going into the world for things for which I exist and for which I was brought into this world?” (5.1).

When you dislike where you live: “[W]here a man can live, there he can live well” (5.16).

When you can’t get away: “Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, seashores, and mountains; and you, too, are wont to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in your power whenever you choose to retire into yourself. . . . tranquility is nothing else than the good ordering of the mind” (4.3).

One of the book’s most penetrating insights is that human beings are social animals. “For we are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth” (2.1). We are made to work together. For that reason, “[t]o act against one another then is contrary to nature and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away” (ibid.). This theme recurs constantly: those who act against others violate their own nature—and in doing so, injure themselves.

From this follows an important implication. When someone wrongs us, they cannot truly harm us, because we remain free to act according to our own nature. That does not mean we never correct others. But when correction is rejected, we must bear with them. This, too, is demanded by our nature.

The same logic applies to doing good. Loving others and acting for the common good is natural—and therefore its own reward. As Marcus Aurelius puts it: “Have I done something for the general interest? Well, then, I have had my reward. Let this always be present to your mind and never stop doing such good” (11.4). If we lived this way, we would be far less anxious about recognition or gratitude.

One place I struggle to put this into practice is driving. As a result, I’ve resolved to let others drive as they wish and refuse to let it govern my emotions.

Recently, I was waiting for a gas pump. I couldn’t pull directly behind the car already there, so I waited slightly to the side. When that car pulled away, another driver quickly darted in and took the spot.

My immediate reaction was clear: “What a jerk!”

Then I remembered Marcus Aurelius. The driver either didn’t know I was waiting, or he did. If he didn’t know, it was an honest mistake and not worth anger. If he did know, then he harmed only himself by acting contrary to his social nature. Waiting a few extra seconds injured me not at all. And who knows what urgency, pressure, or trouble that driver carried with him that day?

Moments later, I pulled up to another pump, filled my tank, and left the gas station . . . with a calm and genuine tranquility.