Posted on 08/01/2005 8:16:45 PM PDT by buckeyesrule
bookmark
It's not just "young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine".
Since the baby boom generation has discarded the concept of holiness, many think of God as little more than Santa Claus for grown-ups ("...he sees you when you're sleeping... he knows if you've been bad or good..."). Toss in some Darwinism taught as proven fact in all public schools, and what was once the foundation of our civilization is now scoffed at as childish superstition. Problem is, the society we're living in now is built almost entirely on sand.
Methinks we'll be seeing the wrath of God again very soon.
That's a mighty broad brush you paint with.
Often enough, I can't wait.. :-)
Oop, just realized that's not very PC.. Ah well..
I'm deeply concerned about a growing trend I've noticed-particularly among people committed to the biblical truth of God's sovereignty and divine election. Some of them flatly deny that God in any sense loves those whom He has not chosen for salvation.I am troubled by the tendency of some-often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine-who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency.
God can love the "world," save the believers, and judge the unbelievers.
There are many aspects of God's Love toward His Creation. I think MacArthur strikes an important balance between the over-emphasis of God's Love above all His other attributes, and the tendency of some to limit that Love in ways that are clearly not in keeping with scripture. Both extremes are equally guilty of mis-stating God's Love and Wrath. It is unfortunate that some see this only as a way to take another pot-shot at those who embrace Reformed doctrines.
I am one who upholds "God as Love" as a scriptural indicator of God's central characteristic. However, I see nothing in MacArthur's article that I would disagree with. (Note that I'm not speaking of our calvinist differences here.) His wrath, his choices, his sovereignty, etc. will never contradict his love (and vice versa.)
correction: "God IS love."
How come you never see the typos until after you click the post button??? :>)
Surely His pleading with the lost, His offers of mercy to the reprobate, and the call of the gospel to all who hear are all sincere expressions of the heart of a loving God. Remember, He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but tenderly calls sinners to turn from their evil ways and live.
I will agree that the offer of mercy to the reprobate and his call of the gospel to all who hear are sincere expressions of God's love, but only if the offer is sincere. In order to make the offer sincere, God must grant to all to whom the offer is extended the ABILITY to respond to that offer. Otherwise the offer is illusory. If the offer of salvation is illusory, then the expression of love is equally illusory.
So what exactly is MacArthur trying to say?
What does ability have to do with the sincerity of an offer? I don't see how the two are linked. The offer is the offer irrespective of anyone's ability.
Otherwise the offer is illusory. If the offer of salvation is illusory, then the expression of love is equally illusory.
That's true only if you accept the premise that sincerity depends on ability. A premise I have yet to see proven so I don't accept it.
He is on the horns of the absolute foreknowledge dilemma.
Yet, we, too, are confronted by that same dilemma. If God foreknew those who would fail and be destroyed, then from the beginning He knew those on whom His love would ABIDE and REMAIN. From the beginning God knew of the fall and of His plan to offer Christ as the remedy for sin, and this was before the sin ever took place.
Our answer is that those who received the fullness of His love were worth it to Him. That all the lostness truly caused our Lord grief, but that the promise of those who received His abiding love made it all worth while.
I can't help but notice that you did not address how that offer is an expression of Love toward the reprobate. If the offer is illusory, if the recipient of the offer cannot accept it and the offeror knows that when the offer is made, then the offer is illusory. If the offer is illusory, then the expression of love that the offer represents is also illusory.
MacArthur wants it both ways. He wants to pretend that God loves the reprobate and expresses that love by offering him salvation, while at the same time he knows that God never intended that the person hear the offer and made the offer in such a way that the person could not hear it.
I'm a little surprise that you would agree with the above statement. Quite frankly I'm not sure I agree with the above statement.
There are many who would argue that God loves everyone equally and that He sent His Son to save them. There are others who would argue that God has created some for destruction and some for His glory for whatever reason. In my mind these two opposing views are easier to reconciled with the many verses that God does not show partiality (Eph 6:9, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:6, etc.) than to say that God loves everyone but not equally.
Somehow I think MacArthur is off base on this one or I'm missing the point.
God foreknew who would be damned.
Therefore, he does not "love all alike." While His love for all is sincere, it is different in that He knows who will remain in Him. I imagine that one difference for those who are lost is that it is a grief-filled love.
Nor do I think God is "compelled by some rule of fairness." I do not think God is bound by a set of "rules." I think that God's nature determines His actions, and that His actions are free (those of a free being.)
I suspect most of the GRPL would agree with you.
I agree. Pelagius' main objection was that the command to obey implies the ability to obey. While the natural ability exists, the moral ability does not by virtue of the complete lack of desire to obey. They could obey if they wanted to, but they don't want to and will not want to apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.
That's true only if you accept the premise that sincerity depends on ability. A premise I have yet to see proven so I don't accept it.
A good point. If ability is necessarily a part of sincerity, then God was insincere in commanding us to keep the whole Law since none of us have the ability to do so.
I will say that I do agree with MacArthur insofar as there is a tendency to run from the smarmy, lovesick-teenager God to the opposite extreme of God having no love whatsoever in any form or fashion for the reprobate. All men are the image-bearers of God (even though that image be corrupt) and have inherent worth as His creation. I believe grace to be a measure of love, and as such God shows His love to all men in the grace poured out indescriminately upon them.
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.