The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Extent of God's Love

Let's Scripture interpret Scripture and not or own forced interpretation due to our own presupposition (aka: inductive). What do I mean here (Analogy of Faith)? We learn how to understand Malachi 1:1-3 from Paul's use of this passage in Romans 9:10-13.

Paul totally eliminates any possibility of looking to either Jacob or Esau (individuals representative of the entire human race re: salvation, i.e., God's love).

1. These two individuals were conceived as one see, i.e., egg in Rebecca = equal.
2. God's choice (love) was made long before they were born = not based upon anything they did or would do.
3. God's election was His deliberate intent to shed His love (choice) upon one and not the other = sovereign electing love is given to one and withheld from the other.
4. Love and hatred are ACTS, not emotional passions in reaction to mankind = love and hatred flow naturally from the very being of God and applied as He has foreordained for His own glory.

Paul continues to expand on this truth and shows that mercy (pity) is extended to some and not all, compassion is extended to some and not all, which is God's prerogative and not according to man's decision (will). Some men are raised to a place of great recognition for the sole purpose of displaying God's power and that His name might be made known to all. Paul then goes further to explain that this mercy given not given to others includes a hardening of their hearts, i.e., increasing their enmity against God further displaying His wrath and power in regard to those whom He created for the very purpose of making known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory.

It is therefore illogical and contrary to this and other explicit passages which teach God's discrimination among those of Adam's fallen race to assert that 1) Election, mercy, and compassion can be alienated and even made antithetical to the love of God. 2) That the election, love and salvation can be separated and made to contradict each other.

1. What is the "high reformed view"? And who has made this designation? Personally, if I were to accept this designation of my view which is consistent with all the Confessions I would much prefer to hold to a "high Reformed view" vs. a "low Reformed view".

2. If you reject the biblical truth that Christ was provided for the elect only, you are forced into a position which is indefensible, i.e., Christ was given to all without God intending to save all by Him. Thus, that which you are so wanting to avoid; an insincere offer of Christ to sinners, that is what you end up with. You have a God Who never intends to save all men, Who sends forth a Savior that redeems men but Who doesn't atone for them so that it is impossible for them to be saved by Him.

3. If Christ was provided for all but not all are saved, then you are forced into defending a position which denies a vicarious, substitutionary atonement. You are left with Christ simply making salvation possible since those for whom He was sent are not all saved by His atonement. (aka: semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism, aka: synergism)

4. You have no biblical warrant to tell anyone that "Christ died for THEM" personally since God has elected only some to receive redemption in Christ whom He sent to accomplish their redemption through His perfect obedience, death and resurrection. Nowhere in Scripture will you find this phrase used in a gospel message preached or taught by the inspired writers or examples of anyone else telling men indiscriminately that Christ died for them. This is something which belongs to those who HAVE COME to Christ by faith, who have been washed in His blood, who have been given the Holy Spirit and Who testifies to their spirit that they are children of God. (cf. Gal 2:20)... in which Paul again makes it very clear that the love of God is inextricably bound to the love of God, the sending of Christ Who actually saves specific individuals.

1. I will have to echo Johan's conclusions and challenge which he has written several times in regard to your references to those who you allege support your view. I believe you have not read Spurgeon correctly for in my reading of that book, he does not support that which you are trying to justify.

2. re: "the majority of the Puritans held to the view I hold". I would publicly challenge you to defend this statement with quotes and references from the majority of Puritans.

In His grace,