Does God So Love the World? (John MacArthur)

OnePlace.com ^ | July 21, 2005 | John MacArthur

[rwfromkansas]

exactly

[SQUIDMACK]

Ive got your DNA test back and there is a 99.9997% chance that Jhonny M. is your daddy.

[Frumanchu]

But you are in the minority on this thread.

How do you figure? nobdysfool and I agree with MacArthur, Harley and rw disagree.

[Frumanchu]

Faith.

How is God not a respector of persons if He chooses based on a conditional met by the persons?

[wallcrawlr]

Christians, it is time to mature in your faith and know why you are saved. Eat spiritual food and stop with the milk. This should not be lost on this thread:

Liberal thinking about God's love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God's wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.

We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God's righteous anger. We need to remember that God's wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.

[ksen]

I can't help but notice that you did not address how that offer is an expression of Love toward the reprobate.

That's because it wasn't my intent to address that. It was my intent to see if you could really make the conclusion that Person B's ability has anything to do with the sincerity of the offer made by Person A.

I'm not decided yet in my own mind whether the Gospel offer is one of love to the Reprobate, meaning one who God knows (why He knows is a different discussion) will never accept the Gospel, or if it's an act of judgment.

[ksen]

(Hi Corin! :wave:)

rw, I don't see how the GRPLs can have God chosing between the Elect and Non-Elect without making him a respecter of persons.

If God were choosing the Elect based on some characteristic that the Elect have that Reprobate do not then I'd agree with you. However God does not base His Elective decision on anything to do with the person. He bases it on His own good pleasure.

[connectthedots]

We are seeing today, in some circles, an almost unprecedented interest in the doctrines of the Reformation and the Puritan eras. I'm very encouraged by that in most respects. A return to those historic truths is, I'm convinced, absolutely necessary if the church is to survive. Yet there is a danger when overzealous souls misuse a doctrine like divine sovereignty to deny God's sincere offer of mercy to all sinners.

Well, you and many other members of the GRPL certainly would appear to be 'overzealous' according to MacArthur.

[ksen]

UNCONDITIONAL election, Corin. He chooses according to the good pleasure of His will, NOT according to some foreseen attribute of the individual.

Wow....I PROMISE I didn't read that before I responded to Corin.

[ksen]

But WHY some and not others Fru? What's the difference?

This may sound trite, but the difference is God.

[Corin Stormhands]

He bases it on His own good pleasure.

Thus my initial question remains unanswered. Fru could only answer it by changing the question.

Why is He pleased with some and not others?

xzins pretty well summed up the distinctions above.

[maestro]

fyi............................ROMANS 10:17

[ksen]

You're talking in circles, because my question is WHY does He choose some and not others?

I know it's hard to accept Corin, but the only WHY God gives us in the Scriptures is God's own good pleasure. He tells us He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy. He doesn't tell us anymore than that. So you are asking a question that can't be answered the way you want it to......at least not by me.

What is the distinction between those chosen and those not chosen?

Intrinsically? Nothing.

The only distinction is that God decided to open the eyes and heart of one while letting the other go on about their life with eyes that don't see and a heart of stone.

[Frumanchu]

Thus my initial question remains unanswered. Fru could only answer it by changing the question. Why is He pleased with some and not others?

OK. I think I see what you're saying now. I assumed you misspoke, but it appears instead that you are misunderstanding what we mean by saying He chose "according to His good pleasure."

There is a difference between saying "God chose them because they pleased Him" and "God chose them because it pleased Him to do so." The former makes God's choosing conditioned upon the individual, while the latter makes it conditioned upon His sovereign will.

So, as I said, I think you are misunderstanding what we are saying. It pleased Him to choose whom He chose, but He did not choose because they pleased Him.

[ksen]

Why is He pleased with some and not others?

This is what is confusing me Corin, I tell you that God chooses based on His own good pleasure and then you ask what is He pleased by in some and not others. I'm sure it's my fault for not understanding though. ;^)

I've never said that God is pleased with some, I said He shows mercy based on Himself, His own good pleasure. Nothing in there implies that He is pleased by anything in a certain set of sinners (the Elect) as opposed to another set of sinners (the Reprobate).

So the answer to your question: Why is He pleased with some and not others? is that He is pleased with none of us. But out of that group of unpleasing sinners He has deigned to show mercy on some based on nothing else than it pleased Him to do so.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Everyone wants to be liked. Everyone wants to be inclusive. Everyone wants to be in the loop.

And yet the Scripture you posted, Rnmom, certainly contradicts MacArthur's premise.

I think MacArthur is probably feeling the heat from his solid appearances on Larry King where he was the ONLY voice among RCs, various Protestants, New-Agers and Jews, who clearly stated that the only way to heaven today is through the door of Jesus Christ.

Those remarks no doubt have brought him problems in the temporal world. They always do.

And so now MacArthur tries to distance himself from the doctrines he has upheld for decades, and thinks he'll make points by slamming those whose beliefs, though politically unpopular, are based firmly on Scripture.

But the truth remains that if God loved all men with the saving grace with which He sacrificed His Son on the cross, all men surely would be saved.

To limit that perfect sacrifice's atoning strength is folly.

And to deny Christ's particular redemption is to deny the predestining will of God, something with which MacArthur says he's in complete agreement.

With concessions like this one, John MacArthur is well on his way to becoming the Bill Frist among the Reformed.

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." -- 2 Timothy 2:19

[A.J.Armitage]

God's wrath against the reprobate is connected to their rejection of His love for them.

In return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to prayer.
So they reward me evil for good, and hatred for my love. (Psalm 109:4-5)

Remember that Peter said this Psalm prophesied about Judas Iscariot, so it makes the most sense to suppose that although David wrote it, the speaker is actually Jesus.

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** And things were different when?***

Em... during the Methodist Revival, the Great Awakenings or the Missionary Movement - or during the Prayer Revival etc...



***When people were obligated by law to attend services and to be respectful?***

There was definitely some of that - each generation has had it's challenges.




***Start your own church.***

I think we have enough - for the time being.




***Make it mandatory that everyone act holier than they are.***

Why are you getting so hot my friend? Go back and read some Church history. Those men and women were giants. We are pygmies. They were willing to throw away their lives - we don't want our Sundy spoiled.




***Don't throw blanket accusations out against everyone sitting in the pews.***

Repeat after me, "It's OK to judge... It's OK to judge... It's OK to judge..." The NT has blanket acessments of geographic churches. Remember, "Say to the Angel of the Church of Sardis..."?



*** The fact is that the Church is as it is. Imperfect. It is as good as its members or as bad as its members.***

Would you allow this to be you opinion of, say, the Word of Faith movement? Simply it "is what it is"?

[connectthedots]

Corin Stormhands: What is the distinction between those chosen and those not chosen?

Intrinsically? Nothing.

So it's a lottery?

I have always been amazed - not really - that the GRPL can hold on to its belief about predestination, yet can never explain away: Joshua 24:15 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV)

15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

How does one simply dismiss free will in light of this most unambiguous verse?

[RnMomof7]

Well, you and many other members of the GRPL certainly would appear to be 'overzealous' according to MacArthur.

That is not a concern for me ( and I doubt the other Reformed believers here care either.)

They murdered Peter and Paul because of their zeal.

Either the word of God is true or it is a lie, I will leave that decision to each man as God as so ordained