I have taken some time to consider Stuart's "7B" because, frankly, I don't understand the question.
Is Paul's love for Israel greater than God's? The answer is plainly "no".
So how does one explain Rom 10:1? I suspect it is by reading it in context and not reading into it. For example, is Paul actually accursed for the nations of Israel? Well, of course not -- and his statement that he wishes he could be underscores Israel's hopeless state rather than something God ought to have done for them.
So why has Stuart asked this question? It seems to me that he wants me to say, "well, because Paul's love for Israel includes saving all of them, but God's love for Israel does not if we believe in limited atonement, then this must prove limited atonement false."
The problem, of course, is that this is a simple non-sequitur. Let's imagine Christopher Hitchens for a moment who would never condemn any man or woman to hell -- to him the idea is itself a moral outrage. Does this mean that Christopher Hitchens loves mankind more than God does -- because certainly, God will condemn some to hell? Indeed not: it proves that Hitchens has an unfounded view of morality and justice because he want to supplant God's view of justice.
And I think we must, at this point, say the same for Pastor Wood. That is: because Pastor Wood wants to argue that the only love which is properly a God-sized love is a love which provides atonement for all people, we must say that his view distorts what God has plainly said about himself in order to conform with some false view of God's Love and Justice.
My apologies if this offends Pastor Wood -- I still think he means well. I think, however, in his well-meaning he has made errors which Scripture refutes as we have seen so far in my answers to him.
Is Paul's love for Israel greater than God's? The answer is plainly "no".
So how does one explain Rom 10:1? I suspect it is by reading it in context and not reading into it. For example, is Paul actually accursed for the nations of Israel? Well, of course not -- and his statement that he wishes he could be underscores Israel's hopeless state rather than something God ought to have done for them.
So why has Stuart asked this question? It seems to me that he wants me to say, "well, because Paul's love for Israel includes saving all of them, but God's love for Israel does not if we believe in limited atonement, then this must prove limited atonement false."
The problem, of course, is that this is a simple non-sequitur. Let's imagine Christopher Hitchens for a moment who would never condemn any man or woman to hell -- to him the idea is itself a moral outrage. Does this mean that Christopher Hitchens loves mankind more than God does -- because certainly, God will condemn some to hell? Indeed not: it proves that Hitchens has an unfounded view of morality and justice because he want to supplant God's view of justice.
And I think we must, at this point, say the same for Pastor Wood. That is: because Pastor Wood wants to argue that the only love which is properly a God-sized love is a love which provides atonement for all people, we must say that his view distorts what God has plainly said about himself in order to conform with some false view of God's Love and Justice.
My apologies if this offends Pastor Wood -- I still think he means well. I think, however, in his well-meaning he has made errors which Scripture refutes as we have seen so far in my answers to him.
This is centuri0n, aka Frank Turk, who has been an internet apologist for about 10 years and has never really gained anything for himself through it but a handful of friends and a lot of ill-will. Most people, honestly, do not like to argue with him because he doesn't know how to let it go. He's a blogger of some minor note, and he's a "calvinist".
0 comments:
Post a Comment