[Dr. Eckleburg]

It isn't MacArthur's distinctions that I disagree with so much, but his finding it necessary to slam fellow Reformed believers.

He's set up a straw man, reviled it and then labeled that straw man as some fellow Reformed believers.

No one, Reformed or not, disagrees with the fact that the sun shines on the saved and the reprobate alike.

But salvation is ordained by God for His elect, determined by Him and not determined by the creature. That is the "agape" RnMom spoke of. And it is different. An eternity of difference.

IMO MacArthur's just trying to salvage his reputation after standing tall on Larry King. There are worldly powers who insist we all bow at the altar of inclusiveness.

Get up, John. You're going the wrong way.

[Frumanchu]

At this point though I'm more concerned with the substance of what he said, not with the circumstances in which he said it and whatever conclusions are trying to be drawn about it.

I agree with what MacArthur said in this article. Attributing motives to MacArthur based on a few interviews is IMO doing the same thing you are criticizing him for in his article: finding it necessary to slam fellow Reformed believers.

Rather than worry about what MacArthur may or not have had as his motive for writing this (and forgive me if I give him the benefit of the doubt), I think it more productive to focus on the content...specifically the issue of whether or not God has any love of any kind for the reprobate. IMO, that theological issue is getting lost in dialogue and baseless allegations over the credibility of the author.