Does God So Love the World? (John MacArthur)

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

[P-Marlowe]

That was well stated.

Except you need to learn how to spell definite.

[suzyjaruki]

God's love extends to the whole world. It covers all humanity.
Common grace demonstrates it, as do His compassion, His admonitions to the lost, and the free offer of the gospel to all. This is what John Mac Arthur has said.

The Mark 10 verse you sighted JM has said is a demonstration of the compassion aspect of universal love.

[connectthedots]

But, mysteriously, He sovereignly allows those things, because though it He will receive a greater glory than could be possible were He to not allow it.

That is a presumptuous statement not based on scripture. At least you acknowledge that God 'allows things' to happen.

What the Bible really means is that despite all our sins and screw-ups, God can still use us through those experiences to further his glory, even if it wasn't what he most desired for us. I've seen that in my own life.

[xzins]

see #271

[P-Marlowe]

From Amazon.com:

2 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

If this is how God loves...., December 8, 2003

Reviewer:

Seth Aaron Lowry (Olean, NY United States) - See all my reviews

then God is not omni benevolent. This book is nothing more than MacArthur's attempt to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand he wants to uphold the traditional Reformed idea that God has an elected people that He loves with a special and unconditional love. Yet, on the other hand MacArthur wants to believe that God loves the non-elect as well. MacArthur argues for this by saying that God possesses two types of love: a general and non-saving love, which he gives to all, and a special and saving love He displays only towards the elect. In my opinion there seems to be a disturbing trend taking place in Reformed apologetics these days. Since they can't conform all of Scripture to their teachings, they invent new ideas and doctrines to attempt to compensate for those deficiencies and weaknesses. First, many have begun to argue for the concept that God has two wills, and that God's desire to save all men only pertains to God's first will, which is really not salvific at all. This has been in direct response to criticisms that have demonstrated that the usual Calvinist approach of saying all men means all types of men is not satisfactory and does not make sense of all the Scriptures.

Now MacArthur has added another element to the argument by saying that God has two types of love. Does anyone else see the pattern here? First God has two wills and now he commands two types of love as well. I can understand MacArthur's reasoning for writing this book since he desires to stem the tide of young and zealous Reformed initiates who argue that God does not love the reprobate, but in fact hates them. They argue for this from Scripture passages such as Romans 9:13, which they believe validates the idea that God hates the non-elect. Yet, instead of accepting the obvious MacArthur has chosen to develop his own unique and unhistorical idea. When the Scripture speaks of God's love for all mankind it always uses the Greek word agape and never gives any hint of a differentiation. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus loved the rich young ruler even though he didn't accept Christ's message. Are we honestly supposed to believe that the agape spoken of there is some ulterior form of love? I and many others do not believe that to be the case. Moreover, Jesus commands us to love our enemies and do well to those who hate and despise us. Is God calling us to do something that He Himself will not do? Again, I seriously doubt this is the case

Finally, I found many of MacArthur's arguments to be unconvincing. He says that he is willing to accept God's love for the non-elect as a love that is calling them to repentance, giving them sufficient grace, and showering them with earthly blessings, but his argument breaks down when one examines his beliefs. Since MarArthur holds to the traditional Reformed idea of Total Depravity, he believes men are corpses are sin, completely unresponsive, oblivious to the things of God, and unable to do a thing. Now, I wouldn't walk up to a corpse tell him I love him and plead with him to repent because that is just ludicrous. Therefore, I doubt the all-wise omnipotent ruler of the universe would do the same to men that are dead in sin since He is infinitely smarter than humans and knows this will accomplish nothing. MacArthur's view of total depravity completely undercuts his arguments for God's love. If you are really serious about studying and understanding God's love for all of us, then read the Bible and only pick up this book after previous study.

[RnMomof7]

Jude.. I will take you back to the beginning

What is the "world" God so loved that he gave His life for it " (true agape love )

kosmos {kos'-mos}

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3 3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor.5:19

When the jews spoke of the "world" they were usually speaking of The gentile nations around them. So the words that the Messiah was for "the world" was truly shocking to them. this was after all the JEWISH messiah they were looking for.

So the question is NOT the meaning of the love of Christ for the elect, that surely is agape love, it is for whom did Christ hold that love? . If Christ holds agape love for those he will condemn for an eternity of fire one might really be concerned what kind of love that is.

If Christ had agape love for all men and died for all men then God is a liar and he is demanding a double payment for what was purchased at the cross.

You make the cross of questionable effect

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** That is a presumptuous statement not based on scripture***

I freely grant that - that's one reason I didn't supply chapter and verse! :)

It was a theological statement, a summation of what I believe to be true about God based on my study of the Scriptures. In that sense it is similar to the statement you make when you say...

"What the Bible really means is that despite all our sins and screw-ups, God can still use us through those experiences to further his glory,".

(But I wouldn't go so far as to call your statement "presumptuous".)

[Buggman]

Yes, but in Arminianism it is only those which are foreseen to respond in faith who are elected. The distinguishing factor rests with the individuals, thereby making Him a respector of persons.

Fru, that doesn't even make sense. Say two men are caught in a crime. One confesses to it up front, expresses remorse, and begs the court's mercy. The other lies repeatedly (and is caught), expresses no remorse, and defies the judge. Would you call the judge a respector of persons if he let the first off with community service and throws the second man in jail for the full term allowed by the law? Or would you say that the judge was both just and merciful in using his authority to go easy on the penitant man and slap down the defiant one.

A "respector of persons" is someone who bases his opinion of someone on their social status or some other accident of their birth rather than on that person's behavioral choices. For God to single some out based on "His good pleasure" for salvation and some for damnation would be the very essence of respecting persons unless He is simply being capricious--which would not describe the God of the Bible! But on the other hand, for God to choose in His sovereignty to give us a valid choice and then make His election based on His foreknowledge of us (which is exactly how Rom. 8:31 and 1 Pt. 1:2 say He goes about it) is not.

[xzins]

see #271

[PetroniusMaximus]

***The Mark 10 verse you sighted JM has said is a demonstration of the compassion aspect of universal love.***

Yes, but the inclusion of that word in the context of Mark 10 has special significance. Jesus is specifically recorded as "loving" 5 people, Martha, Mary, Lazarus, the "Disciple" and this young man. And though we know he certainly loved many more, this just serves to highlight the uniqueness of the use of this word in this context.

I believe to equate it with some expression of "universal love" is to miss the significance of it's inclusion in Mark 10.

[Jonathon Edwards]

"It is still offered to every man, woman, and child. It requires linguistic gymnastics to make the Bible say anything other than the fact that God loves the whole world..."

Friend, it is you who has limited the word and did a somersault with Kosmos. Why do you limit it strictly to the human species? What about puppies and kitties and flowers? Aren't they part of the Kosmos? The verse clearly states that God so loved all that he created (Kosmos) that he gave his only begotten Son. Now what?

[xzins]

MacArthur argues for this by saying that God possesses two types of love: a general and non-saving love, which he gives to all, and a special and saving love He displays only towards the elect

God's absolute foreknowledge demands that some kind of distinction, as argued above, must be at play.

Even if it is "a tough, yet grief-filled love" for those who will be lost -- because He knows of the eventual lostness -- then, in my opinion, MacArthur is on to something here and is trying to be honest.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Why do you limit it strictly to the human species? What about puppies and kitties and flowers? Aren't they part of the Kosmos? The verse clearly states that God so loved all that he created (Kosmos) that he gave his only begotten Son. Now what?***

Friend, does not this Bible clearly indicate that all of creation (excluding those who reject Christ) will eventually restored by virtue of Jesus sacrifice?

[suzyjaruki]

Okay, what would you tell John MacArthur about the significance of that word in Mark 10?

Do you believe that God loves "the world" in the same way as the five people you have mentioned? How the same or how different?

[suzyjaruki]

Thanks for posting this article. The article itself is interesting reading and the discussion is thought provoking. I hope you are enjoying the thread as much as I am.

[blue-duncan]

When I do what I'm supposed to do I think He is quite surprised. In fact Heb. 2:11-12 says He is so surprised He whips put His wallet with my picture and tells everyone around Him I am His brother and He's proud of me. How about that?

[buckeyesrule]

Actually I posted this just before I went to bed and I just got home from work. I can't remember a John MacArthur writing receiving almost 300 posts. WOW!!!

[P-Marlowe]

It was predestined.

[Jonathon Edwards]

To be precise, I would say "renewed" is the better terminology, (in lieu of restored), as a part of the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. The Father had such a great love for all that was created that he gave his only Son to become a part of that which was created so that creation would be renewed.

Thank you, Friend, for allowing me to meditate on the wonders of the Godhead.