Posted on 08/01/2005 8:16:45 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
I think those are excellent verses and you make an outstanding point.
You can’t talk about God’s love without God’s wrath. Does anyone think that God loved the people of Sodom even a little while He was raining fire down on their heads? Did He regret that He had to flood the world, drowning men, women and children even though He loved them? Did He still love the Canaanites (even a little bit) when He had Joshua and company move in to destroy them?
We assume God loves us until He finally gets fed up with us. This twists our understanding of God’s perfection in believing He is tolerant of our sin. Why would God destroy Sodom if perfect love “bears all things”? Rather, perhaps, we are vile creatures who run to evil and hate what is good; but God, in His great love, had mercy on some of us changing us into the type of creatures we should become.
I think you’re right, RNMOMOF7. God loves because He chooses to love. In the case of Sodom, the pre-flood world, or Esau, it is apparent God does not choose to love everyone.
When construing the written word, especially when the words and the language is carefully considered, as in the Bible, statutes, and constitutions, one of the basic rules of construction is that one must not read words into or out of the 'writing' when the words and language are unambiguous.
Another way to put it is that the words mean what they say.
The burden is not on me when the words are unambiguous; the burden is on you, because you propose a construction and interpretation that simply cannot be read into this verse by a reasonable man.
Marlowe is an attorney, and I am quite confident he would agree with me on this point.
It sounds like Berkhof agrees with MacArthur.
Here's a transcript from one of MacArthur's appearances on Larry King. (Note the difference between MacArthur's answers and those of Father Manning...
________
KING: John MacArthur, you believe that Muslim people, the Islamic people are wrong. Their beliefs are wrong.
MACARTHUR: That's right. And this is not some personal belief of mine. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life..."
KING: Yes, but if they don't believe that...
MACARTHUR: If they don't believe that, no man comes to the Father but by me.
KING: You must believe that, too, Father.
MANNING: I believe very much that the love of God is strong. Jesus -- Jesus loves all people. Jesus died for all people and I can't imagine...
KING: He died for the Islamic, too?
MANNING: Of course he did. Of course he did. And he loves them with a passion.
KING: You believe that, too, right?
MACARTHUR: Well, I believe God loves his creatures, his creations.
MACARTHUR: But in the end he's going to condemn to an eternal hell all those who reject his son Jesus Christ.
MANNING: And he rejoices, and Jesus rejoices...
KING: All of them?
MACARTHUR: All who reject his son Jesus Christ, the Bible says, are condemned to eternal punishment.
________
Pink is correct, and MacArthur knows that. IMO MacArthur is now doing penance for his "exclusionary" remarks, here concerning Muslims, and in the following links, where he discusses homosexuals and politics. We underestimate the power of the one-way, one-world, one-religion agenda to which MacArthur seems to have succumbed...
and
Ahhhhh...but as xzins would say, when was Joshua regenerated?
The problem is that you proceed from the assumption that you are correctly understanding what the words say. You are very selectively applying your hermeneutical principles. There are several verses which both Reformed and non-Reformed point to as "clear and unambiguous" and yet the conclusions they are cited in support of are contradictory.
The simple example would be the "clear and unabmiguous" statements that "God so loved the world" and "Esau I have hated." Given the implicit premise that Esau is part of "the world" these statements are ostensibly contradictory. Now we all have explanations for how they are not contradictory (which we must necessarily have given our unanimous agreement on the trustworthiness of Scripture), but the fact is that the words do not necessarily mean what they appear to say.
Marlowe is an attorney, and I am quite confident he would agree with me on this point.
I'm sure he would. The fact remains though that the limited fashion in which you are applying hermeneutic principles is not sufficient to carry your argument.
Yes it does, and Berkhof gives a wonderful explanation.
You're quoting Scripture as interpreted by the Calvinists. And that is the way you understand it.
Yet there have been centuries of disagreements over those interpretations. You know that.
So, once again, as I have often argued, it comes down to man's fallible interpretations of God's infallible Scriptures.
You see it one way. We see it another.
You think you're right. We think we're right.
I'm comfortable with the realization that it is indeed a mystery that we will not ~solve~ here on FreeRepublic any more than it has been ~solved~ in centuries of debate.
Joshua was clear that he chose to serve the LORD.
But that "special love" of which Berkof writes is the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ who died and was resurrected to save the elect, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.
Pretty special.
And here all this time I thought I belonged to the Grand Rapids Library. I guess I can stop wondering when my library card will come. :O)
No.
So you think MacArthur is being dishonest?
If scripture teaches that it is a mystery, why do people try to figure it out? How does anyone know if they are correct or not? If it is truly a mystery, then anyone could be correct, or none.
In some way, we might see this same kind of difference in how we have been told to treat one another in this world. For instance, we are told to love our enemies. What does this mean? Are we to treat them the same as those who are of the household of faith? I believe it is a different kind of love.
The timing of MacArthur's statements here certainly make what you are saying valid.
Seeing that God knows all, including the future and what anyone is going to do, is all powerful, and He is never wrong....then how could anyone do anything other than what God wants them to?
Even Calvin states that man has to exercise his will to choose to serve the Lord.
That notwithstanding, Joshua was following the Lord far before this point in time. This was more like a reaffirmation-not a confession.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.