Jesus loves the little children.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

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?

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".

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top