# Jesus loves the little children.



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

I was told by a Roman Catholic that I couldn't sing the song "Jesus loves the little children" without being a liar because I am a calvinist.

What are your thoughts on the extent of the love of God and how to answer people who say things like; "a calvinist can't sing Jesus loves the little children or he will be a liar in his heart before God".

Note: It is my current understanding that God indeed does hate the reprobate and that they are predestined before the foundation of the world to receive the outpouring of God's wrath in justice for their wickedness, because of the perfectness of God's infinite will that I as a finite creature can't understand. So with this understanding I have a hard time saying God loves (as I understand the ddefinition of love I guess) every person who has ever existed. Also I look to the scripture that says this:

Romans 9:13-16 KJV
[13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[14] What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
[15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
[16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This passage does not say Esau's sin have I hated. It says Esau have I hated. So I am not in the God hates the sin but loves the sinner camp. As I understand it he loves only his elect. 

I have also been influenced in my view on this by Dr. Robert Morey (Westminster Seminary man) who's view is made very clear in this video:

[video=youtube;d0sobp4WV9U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0sobp4WV9U[/video]

So please, give me your thoughts and concerns. Does God love everyone?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 9, 2010)

David - 

The topic of the love of God is a bit more complex than some would think.

I highly encourage you to pick up - and read - a copy of DA Carson's "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God." It is a relatively short book, and while it won't answer every question, it at least does a good job of pointing out the various facets or aspects of God's love and what that means in different contexts.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

Joshua said:


> You may find some of these helpful:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/people-does-god-love-57923/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/does-god-hate-all-who-not-christian-54527/
> ...


 
Great list of resource threads to cover! Thanks Joshua.

I will certainly read through them.

However, the main purpose of this thread is that I have given my view, which is indeed established, I believe can be defended as Dr. Morey showed, but I would like to hear the views of members of this forum. What do you actually think? What are your views on this matter? Do you feel in your heart that God loves everyone or do you feel that he hates the reprobate and has hated them since before he made them? Also how would you answer the question raised by the Roman Catholic. With my view I kindof thought well in a way she is right! I don't think he loves every child but then I think to myself what am I saying and i doubt my convictions... So, thoughts?


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 9, 2010)

My very young children take home Sunday school stuff all the time saying "Jesus Loves Me" and so on. I justify this by reflecting on the attribute of God called compassion. Sure, in a sense he "doesn't desire the death of anyone", and is "compassionate towards all he has created". But obviously I do not allow one attribute of God to become the all-governing sphere by which I seek to understand a more complete picture of God's dealings with men.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> David -
> 
> The topic of the love of God is a bit more complex than some would think.
> 
> I highly encourage you to pick up - and read - a copy of DA Carson's "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God." It is a relatively short book, and while it won't answer every question, it at least does a good job of pointing out the various facets or aspects of God's love and what that means in different contexts.


 

Would you say my view is orthodox or are Dr. Morey and myself verging on hypercalvinist heresy from your perspective?


----------



## ubermadchen (Mar 9, 2010)

Wouldn't want to sing that song anyway. What about the brown kids? Will no one love the brown kids?


----------



## Tripel (Mar 9, 2010)

ubermadchen said:


> Wouldn't want to sing that song anyway. What about the brown kids? Will no one love the brown kids?


 
My daughter has a video that has this song being sung, and they include "brown". 

_Red, brown, yellow, black, and white
They are precious in His sight_


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

No olive?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 9, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> David -
> 
> The topic of the love of God is a bit more complex than some would think.
> 
> I highly encourage you to pick up - and read - a copy of DA Carson's "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God." It is a relatively short book, and while it won't answer every question, it at least does a good job of pointing out the various facets or aspects of God's love and what that means in different contexts.


 
What I'm saying is that I think there is a sense in which God "loves" only the elect, and there is a sense in which God "loves" all his creation. Read the book.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > David -
> ...


 
Sounds like a good book. I'll check it out. 

So, do you agree that if someone says something like "why would Christ only die for the elect and not everyone if he loves everyone" I can say "well, he doesn't love everyone" without being one bit misleading?


----------



## KMK (Mar 9, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > You may find some of these helpful:
> ...


 
If you want substantial answers to your question, you are going to have to define what you believe God's love is. That is why Joshua and Ben are directing you to these other resources.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

KMK said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...


 
I understand God's love for his elect as a familial love like a father would have for a child. I don't think he loves the reprobate given that understanding based on what I believe is revealed in scripture. It looks to me like there are only two people in the world; Israel and the children of the devil.


----------



## Jon Peters (Mar 9, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > David -
> ...


 
I agree. I think it's important not to get "stuck" on the hate language in Scripture. There is a very real way, though not always redemptive, that God loves all of his creation. Is it not his love that pleads with men to turn to him? I suppose even then one could argue that he is pleading only with the elect. I think the free offer debate is closely connected with your question.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

If I was talking to an arminain friend or a catholic or something and I needed to say that God doesn't love everyone, would I have the full backing of the Reformed Churches on that or am I going to far? That is what I would really like to know.


----------



## Jon Peters (Mar 9, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> If I was talking to an arminain friend or a catholic or something and I needed to say that God doesn't love everyone, would I have the full backing of the Reformed Churches on that or am I going to far? That is what I would really like to know.


 
I think it really depends on the content of your statement. God does not love everybody redemptively. Christ did not die for all. But there is a sense in which he does love everyone. I go back to the free offer of the gospel: What compels God to extend the gospel to every man?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

Jon Peters said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > If I was talking to an arminain friend or a catholic or something and I needed to say that God doesn't love everyone, would I have the full backing of the Reformed Churches on that or am I going to far? That is what I would really like to know.
> ...


 
God has the gospel proclaimed to the entire earth because it deserves to be proclaimed and it is his will that men hear it. It is good news for the elect and will be a curse for the reprobate, but yet it glorifes God when it is heard because the gospel is good and deserves to be proclaimed. That's the way I see it anyway.

But if someone was making an argument that God loves everyone therefore he died for everyone and should give everyone a chance for salvation, is it not prudent to explain that God does not love everyone?


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 9, 2010)

> But if someone was making an argument that God loves everyone therefore he died for everyone and should give everyone a chance for salvation, is it not prudent to explain that God does not love everyone?



Yes, when they're getting that specific in regards to what God's love is, you must explain it is NOT that.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

Rick Larson said:


> > But if someone was making an argument that God loves everyone therefore he died for everyone and should give everyone a chance for salvation, is it not prudent to explain that God does not love everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when they're getting that specific in regards to what God's love is, you must explain it is NOT that.


 
Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that I'm not doing wrong and you guys agree because at first it does indeed sound harsh to say God does not love everyone. So I feel better checking myself against my peers every once in awhile in regards to this kind of thing. I don't doubt God's word but I do doubt my interpretation of it from time to time because I know I'm ridiculous.

Any pastors or elders agree that it is ok to say God doesn't love everyone in a situation like that?


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 9, 2010)

> Any pastors or elders agree that it is ok to say God doesn't love everyone in a situation like that?



I'm not a pastor or elder, but I would really want to be prepared to back up that kind of statement, with the entire concept of the Covenant of Grace firmly planted in my mind and ready to explain it clearly.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

Rick Larson said:


> > Any pastors or elders agree that it is ok to say God doesn't love everyone in a situation like that?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a pastor or elder, but I would really want to be prepared to back up that kind of statement, with the entire concept of the Covenant of Grace firmly planted in my mind and ready to explain it clearly.


 
I agree. I find it necessary to say sometimes though or limited atonement doesn't make sense to a person who has been bred on the idea that God died for everyone and that he is trying to get all men to just choose him so they can be saved. The idea that God just didn't love the reprobate in the first place and actively predestined him for damnation many times never even occured to them.


----------



## JML (Mar 9, 2010)

Jon Peters said:


> I go back to the free offer of the gospel: What compels God to extend the gospel to every man?



He doesn't.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 9, 2010)

I just watched that video... holy smokes... and I thought that I was abrasive! Sheesh!

Regardless... he's no DA Carson. So again I'd urge you to read book.


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2010)

I don't think D A Carson is going to provide the Calvinist answer which is being sought in this thread.

Jesus' love is clearly manifested in the undeniable fact that He has died for sinners. There are two points which accompany this undeniable fact. First, Jesus has not died for every sinner; therefore Jesus cannot be said to love every sinner. Secondly, the death of Jesus is offered to every sinner who hears the gospel as the only basis upon which they can be saved; therefore Jesus can be said to hold out His love as a revelation to be embraced by faith to every sinner who hears the gospel.

Should one say, Jesus loves little children? Yes, because Jesus has died for those who are little children. Should one say, Jesus loves each and every individual little child? No, because Jesus has not died for each and every individual little child. Jesus reveals His love for little children in dying for their sins to reconcile them to God, and every little child that believes in Jesus can believe that He loves them and has given Himself for them.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 9, 2010)

Thanks Rev. Winzer.

I think you have solidified that it is ok for me to speak about this subject without feeling bad about it. That's a very good answer to the indictment.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 9, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> I don't think D A Carson is going to provide the Calvinist answer which is being sought in this thread.
> 
> Jesus' love is clearly manifested in the undeniable fact that He has died for sinners. There are two points which accompany this undeniable fact. First, Jesus has not died for every sinner; therefore Jesus cannot be said to love every sinner. Secondly, the death of Jesus is offered to every sinner who hears the gospel as the only basis upon which they can be saved; therefore Jesus can be said to hold out His love as a revelation to be embraced by faith to every sinner who hears the gospel.
> 
> Should one say, Jesus loves little children? Yes, because Jesus has died for those who are little children. Should one say, Jesus loves each and every individual little child? No, because Jesus has not died for each and every individual little child. Jesus reveals His love for little children in dying for their sins to reconcile them to God, and every little child that believes in Jesus can believe that He loves them and has given Himself for them.


 
Matt - I hear you.
However, David has pressed for a degree of precision in precisely what he's being asked that I rarely if ever find from a lay-person or common person on the street who would be making a "Jesus loves you" type of statement. Pardon me, but his question sounds an awful lot to these jaded ears (or eyes, since I'm reading it) like a question posed by a young private in which they're going to take your answer and run with it in a direction that I don't intend. What I hear him asking is if it is ok to counter a "God loves everyone" statement with a "No he doesn't!" response, and I certainly think that Scripture is nuanced to the point that an across the board repudiation of the statement that God loves everyone is unwise - and in fact displays almost as much lack of precision as the question in the first place... until you know what, precisely, is intended. 
I think Carson's book is important precisely because he underscores the point that references to God's love do not mean the same thing in every place, and we get in trouble if we think that every reference to God's love refers to precisely the same thing in the exact same way.


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Matt - I hear you.
> However, David has pressed for a degree of precision in precisely what he's being asked that I rarely if ever find from a lay-person or common person on the street who would be making a "Jesus loves you" type of statement. Pardon me, but his question sounds an awful lot to these jaded ears (or eyes, since I'm reading it) like a question posed by a young private in which they're going to take your answer and run with it in a direction that I don't intend. What I hear him asking is if it is ok to counter a "God loves everyone" statement with a "No he doesn't!" response, and I certainly think that Scripture is nuanced to the point that an across the board repudiation of the statement that God loves everyone is unwise - and in fact displays almost as much lack of precision as the question in the first place... until you know what, precisely, is intended.
> I think Carson's book is important precisely because he underscores the point that references to God's love do not mean the same thing in every place, and we get in trouble if we think that every reference to God's love refers to precisely the same thing in the exact same way.


 
Hi Ben. Who is Matt? 

Carson will certainly provide nuances to the discussion but he only synthesises Calvinist and Arminian thought, and he develops the idea of a love of God which he believes gives biblical credence to that synthesis. I believe he is mistaken. His rhetoric (even allowing the material was originally in lecture form) is unhelpful. He often employs scholastic categories without giving due acknowledgment, and masks these as his own observations, so that the reader is left without any way of testing what he is saying in terms of theological constructs. His ideas of providential, pleading, and conditional divine love would lead us all into oblivion so far as assurance of salvation is concerned. The book is useful in terms of opening up theological avenues to explore, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is struggling to understand the doctrine.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 9, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Matt - I hear you.
> ...


 
I find your analysis interesting. Perhaps precisely because the book was profoundly helpful for me when I was struggling to understand the doctrine. Too many people have a theology that suffers from an anemic and undeveloped understanding of God's love. They think "love is concern, if God anywhere shows concern for people then that means God loves them" and they don't make any distinction between God's intra-Trinitarian love, God's general love for His creation, His redemptive love for his elect, etc. Which I think is very important. 
But we can disagree on the value of the book. I'm down with that.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Carson will certainly provide nuances to the discussion but he only synthesises Calvinist and Arminian thought, and he develops the idea of a love of God which he believes gives biblical credence to that synthesis. I believe he is mistaken. His rhetoric (even allowing the material was originally in lecture form) is unhelpful. He often employs scholastic categories without giving due acknowledgment, and masks these as his own observations, so that the reader is left without any way of testing what he is saying in terms of theological constructs. His ideas of providential, pleading, and conditional divine love would lead us all into oblivion so far as assurance of salvation is concerned. The book is useful in terms of opening up theological avenues to explore, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who is struggling to understand the doctrine.



I agree with Matthew here. I found Carson profoundly unhelpful and muddled in this book. It should have been left as an unpublished audio lecture. 

Carson is good in many areas. Not here in my opinion. He is not Confessional (as far as I know) and I wouldn't categorize him as Reformed.


----------



## TimV (Mar 10, 2010)

That song brings back ugly memories of the fundy dipsy church where I grew up. Like walking in the garden alone and the love we share as we tarry there no one else in history has ever known, and the Song of Songs has nothing to do with romance between a man and a woman etc...

Like as, if you're a diabetic you shouldn't sing those songs without an insulin shot.

But plugging Rev. Winzer's analysis into the song, it would go:

Jesus loves the little children
Some of the children in the world
Red brown yellow black and white
Some are precious in His sight

Yuck to both versions. Unless there's a sermonette before hand explaining "All the children in the world" refers to "the elect of every tribe, nation and language" and not to all the children in general.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 10, 2010)

I disagree. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, in that everyone bears His image and He loves His image. But at the same time, he hates the unregenerate sinner because of his sin nature. I don't think it's contradictory to both love and hate someone.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 10, 2010)

Skyler said:


> I disagree. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, in that everyone bears His image and He loves His image. But at the same time, he hates the unregenerate sinner because of his sin nature. I don't think it's contradictory to both love and hate someone.



The way I understood it was that man was made in the image of God, but the fall was a radical fall that effected all of creation. Therefore the image of God that man was made in has basically been wrecked by the fall, when we are finally glorified the image of God is fully restored. 

Is this incorrect anyone?


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 10, 2010)

The Love of God is found in Christ. God loves sinners in His Son. The age of the sinner is not as important as whether or not they are found *IN Christ*
Rom 5:[QUOTE 5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. ][/QUOTE]

Rom8;


> 39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 10, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, in that everyone bears His image and He loves His image. But at the same time, he hates the unregenerate sinner because of his sin nature. I don't think it's contradictory to both love and hate someone.
> ...


 
The image of God in everyone is cited as the basis for the wrongness of murder, is it not? Therefore the image of God, while corrupted, is still present. It will be restored ("restored" may be the wrong term here, but it works for now) at glorification.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 10, 2010)

Skyler said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
Isn't corrupted a light term for it though? From how I understand it it is radically corrupted, basically indistinguishable.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 10, 2010)

Thanks for posting that video. Good stuff. It is really needed today.
Although Dr. Morey is a bit smart-alecky with his mocking voices. 
Understandable though.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------


----------



## Skyler (Mar 10, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > DD2009 said:
> ...


 
If it were completely destroyed, that would render the argument of Genesis 9:6 moot:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

The fact that man is created in God's image is the basis for the prohibition of murder in this passage.

Furthermore, the image of God in man includes the ability to reason and know good and evil--neither of which was destroyed at the fall. Damaged, yes, but not destroyed.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 10, 2010)

Skyler said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
Not utterly destroyed then, but still pretty bad or natural man wouldn't be in bondage to sin.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > DD2009 said:
> ...


 
Agreed. Do you see my point, though?


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> I disagree. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, in that everyone bears His image and He loves His image. But at the same time, he hates the unregenerate sinner because of his sin nature. I don't think it's contradictory to both love and hate someone.


 
I'm having a hard time believing that I actually just read this. 

I don't think it's contradictory to be both clean and dirty.
I don't think it's contradictory to both speak and not speak.
I don't think it's contradictory to be both black and white.

What postmodern nonsense. If to love and to hate are not diametrically opposed, then why does Christ posit them as such in, e.g., Matthew 5:43-44? Why did God present them as opposites in Romans 9:13?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
I see how the image of God isn't completely gone. I believe that is has been severely wrecked by the fall and will be restored in full in glory, but I don't understand how the reprobate is both loved and hated. That's why I believe God only loves his elect.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, in that everyone bears His image and He loves His image. But at the same time, he hates the unregenerate sinner because of his sin nature. I don't think it's contradictory to both love and hate someone.
> ...


 
Because in both those cases love and hate are being used in the same sense. I am arguing that it is not contradictory to love someone in one sense and hate them in another sense.

God is said to love his enemies:
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

And he is said to hate his enemies:
"The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers."

Either there is a contradiction here, or "love" and "hate" are used in different senses.

P.S. Newspapers are both black and white.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
Personally, I think this falls into the same principle of judging others. We are not allowed to judge because we are not worthy to judge, so it is a sin for us, because any judgment we make will be hypocritical. God is holy so he is allowed to justly judge, so judging is not a sin for him.

Children of God trust in him and his providence and that involves loving your ememies and praying for them, and laying all of your cares before God. God on the other hand is worthy to hate his enemies because only he is holy. So, just because God tells us to love our enemies, doesn't mean that he must play by the same fiddle, because he is holy and set apart from us and all he does is good, where we are naturally wicked and do evil.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...



Perhaps I'm being dense... but where in what you quoted is God said to love His enemies?



> And he is said to hate his enemies:
> "The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
> you hate all evildoers."



Yes, God is said to hate them.



> Either there is a contradiction here, or "love" and "hate" are used in different senses.



Well, you haven't shown either point, that God is said to love His enemies (at least by your quoted Scripture which you maintain DOES show that) so you can't support your claim. 



> P.S. Newspapers are both black and white.


 
Actually they're neither black nor white, but that's beside the point.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...


 
Re-read the quote from Matthew 5:

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

Love your enemies. Why? So that you may be sons of your Father. What does loving your enemies have to do with being sons of God? He makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 

The logical flow of the argument seems clear to me. Our grounds for loving our enemies is based in the nature of God.

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------




> > P.S. Newspapers are both black and white.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they're neither black nor white, but that's beside the point.


 
The text is black and the paper is white. That's why we call them "black and white". We're not saying the _whole_ newspaper is black and white at the same time, but that one aspect is black and another is white.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Re-read the quote from Matthew 5:
> 
> "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
> 
> ...


 
It is based on the providence of God; there is no statement about the nature of God. This is how God acts in His station; and this is how we are to act in our station. We may not conclude that God loves His enemies, prays for those that persecute Him, or blesses those that curse Him. He is the Sovereign Judge of all the earth; we are not.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > DD2009 said:
> ...


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

Okay, you're still not answering my question though. Is _my_ interpretation _incorrect_, and if so, why? All you've done is provide an alternative interpretation; you haven't explained why mine cannot be the case.


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Okay, you're still not answering my question though. Is _my_ interpretation _incorrect_, and if so, why? All you've done is provide an alternative interpretation; you haven't explained why mine cannot be the case.


 
Does God pray for those that persecute Him? If you sense there is something unreasonable about admitting this part of your logical conclusion, then the same unreasonableness applies to the conclusion that God loves His enemies.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, you're still not answering my question though. Is _my_ interpretation _incorrect_, and if so, why? All you've done is provide an alternative interpretation; you haven't explained why mine cannot be the case.
> ...


 
Luke 23:34
"And Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'"

Jesus is God. Jesus prayed for those who persecuted him. Therefore, God prayed for those who persecuted Him.


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Jesus is God. Jesus prayed for those who persecuted him. Therefore, God prayed for those who persecuted Him.


 
If this reasoning were valid it would be equally true that Jesus is God; Jesus hungered; therefore, God hungered. I hope you can see that your logic does not account for the fact that the Second Person of the incorruptible Godhead assumed human nature, and that as Mediator He did what was proper to each nature with its own qualities.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus is God. Jesus prayed for those who persecuted him. Therefore, God prayed for those who persecuted Him.
> ...


 
Then if it was proper for Jesus, in his human nature, to pray for his persecutors, it was also proper for Jesus, in his human nature, to love his enemies, correct?


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 11, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, in that everyone bears His image and He loves His image. But at the same time, he hates the unregenerate sinner because of his sin nature. I don't think it's contradictory to both love and hate someone.
> ...


 
One may note that apparent contradictions are not always total contradictions without falling into the slough of Postmodernism. It is possible that love and hate are not always diametrically opposed but, for that to occur, the love and the hate must never be contradictory in the same sense. If it is possible for God to love someone in one sense and hate them in another, the parallel might be a person who is morally clean yet physically dirty. 

Rom. 9:13 by extension appears at first glance to mean that God hates all the reprobate in all possible ways, but that conclusion is challenged by 1 Tim. 2:4's statement that God "desires all men to be saved." If God desires the reprobate to be saved from hell in some sense, he is, in some sense "desiring" something that is to their eternal good. If he is doing that, how can God be said to "hate" the reprobate in all senses of that word?


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Re-read the quote from Matthew 5:
> 
> "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
> 
> ...



The problem is that your argument is not made on the basis of logic, but upon a presupposition of yours; in logical terms, what I believe you've done is an instance of begging the question. You have inserted into the argument your belief that God loves all men (in some sense) indiscriminately; though that appears nowhere in the argument, you have concluded that this belief somehow logically flows from your quotation of Matthew 5. 

On the contrary, here is what the text actually says: 

Jesus says we are to love both enemies and friends. He says that this action on our part is somehow connected to our being God's sons. You may wish to look at John's epistles to see how this connection comes about. It does not have to do with God's nature, but with a proper, grateful response to God's love for us, his sons. The text says absolutely zero about God's nature.

Jesus secondly illustrates our actions of loving of both friend and enemy by stating that God makes rain fall on the just and the unjust. He illustrates this by showing that he is willing to provide rain to both. Where is God's love discussed here? Nowhere. Is rain falling on the just and the unjust "love"? Not by any stretch of the word. 

God does NOT anywhere say that his making the rain fall on the just and the unjust alike is because of an indscriminate love for all. You are importing that idea into the text. The text itself does not say, nor does it imply this, which is why I argued that you could not claim that you had proven your case based on your citation of this verse. It does not serve your purposes.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 11, 2010)

timmopussycat said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
This begs the question. You know as well as I do that "all men" is never to be read out of context, and rarely means "each and every individual man".


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
Yes, as it is for us, as human beings.


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Then if it was proper for Jesus, in his human nature, to pray for his persecutors, it was also proper for Jesus, in his human nature, to love his enemies, correct?


 
Yes, especially considering He was debtor to the whole law.


----------



## jayce475 (Mar 12, 2010)

This thread brings to mind the mainline catchphrase of "God loves the sinner but hates the sin". I hear that mentioned whenever there is a discussion on homosexuality. It's not really biblical, is it? God loving His children and hating the reprobate seems to be quite different from God loving all sinners.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 12, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Re-read the quote from Matthew 5:
> ...


 
I'm _defining_ his general love _by_ the idea of "God sending his rain on the just and the unjust", not "importing" it. This "general love" is illustrated by passages such as Matthew 5 as well as Ezekiel 33:11, Psalm 145:8-9, etc.:

Ezekiel 33:11: 
Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

Psalm 145:8-9:
The LORD is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
The LORD is good to all,
and his mercy is over all that he has made.

Would you also disagree with common grace?

As a side note, I think we've answered the original question--if Jesus in his humanity loves everyone, then there's nothing wrong with singing "Jesus loves the little children".


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 12, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...



And you should know that this context is particularly problematic for determining whether "all people" can mean "each and every" in v. 4. For the word occurs in v. 1's "all people" is then qualified by v.2's "for kings" then apparently must mean "each and every" in "and all who are in high positions" before the critical statement in v. 4. 
Nothing in the text itself directly tells us which of the two meanings of "all" Paul intended in v. 4, but since his point in v.2 was to get prayer for each and every authority, he could have been farily understood to refer to each and every man in v. 4. In fact many of the arguments from which it is alleged that we must conclude that " desires all" here does not mean "each and every" seems not only to aim at defending limited atonement but also arise from a begged question of whether or not God experiences any degree of emotional variation in his immutable character.

Notable scholars among the Confessionally Reformed have taken both sides of that question, and I don't propose to get into it here since the PB has a policy on the matter. But I would like to ask if anyone can point me to the best Puritan era discussion of a related point. We know from his demonstrated knowledge of future events that God's relationship to time is not exactly as ours is. Who among the Puritans has the most thorough discussion of how God's relationship to temporality (whatever it is) might affect not only his experience of emotivity but our capacity to understand it? 

Turning back to the main question of whether to antonyms are always totally contradictory, perhaps a better text to consider is Acts 17:30 in which God commands "all people" to repent. I don't think anybody here would argue that "all people" here does not mean "each and every". Now a royal command is an expression of the royal will in at least some sense, here at least God's will of precept if not his will of decree. But commanding someone to do something that will ultimately issue in their good if they did it, is not an expression of hatred in all senses. And the command of Acts 17:30 necessarily includes the reprobate.


----------



## R Harris (Mar 12, 2010)

Whoever wrote "Jesus loves the little children, ALL the little children of the world," obviously never read Revelation 2:21-23.

The above is a clear example that covenantal cursing still exists in the new covenant. Note that the text says nothing about the children being involved with Jezebel's sin; they are simply the recipients of Christ's covenantal curse and judgment.

A sobering passage for all who would seek to deceive and lead astray the body.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 12, 2010)

R Harris said:


> Whoever wrote "Jesus loves the little children, ALL the little children of the world," obviously never read Revelation 2:21-23.
> 
> The above is a clear example that covenantal cursing still exists in the new covenant. Note that the text says nothing about the children being involved with Jezebel's sin; they are simply the recipients of Christ's covenantal curse and judgment.
> 
> A sobering passage for all who would seek to deceive and lead astray the body.


 
You're equivocating on two different meanings of "children". The song refers to physical children (i.e., an eight-year-old) while the passage refers to spiritual children (as Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 4:14, Galations 4:19, etc). John also uses the term frequently throughout his epistles to refer to spiritual children.


----------



## R Harris (Mar 12, 2010)

Skyler said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever wrote "Jesus loves the little children, ALL the little children of the world," obviously never read Revelation 2:21-23.
> ...



So you are saying that these children of Jezebel's are not her physical offspring? This is the first I have ever heard of this interpretation.

Is there a greek difference in the words used for "children"? I have not heard that anyone who was following Jezebel's teachings were considered her "children."

Yes, I am aware of how John uses the word "children" elsewhere, but I am not convinced it is being employed in the same sense here.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 12, 2010)

R Harris said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > R Harris said:
> ...


 
I am not sure whether or not there is a difference in the Greek--I don't think there is, but I'm not a Greek scholar so I could be wrong here.

In my humble opinion, the "spiritual children" interpretation makes the most sense given the rest of verse 23:

"and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works."


----------

