I did show how I felt it was wrong to use the OT as a way to explain God's love as being different for different people and how it opens a whole can of worms on God's nature.
How you felt it was wrong. I prefer to know why it is wrong if it is. It is not a way of explaining God's love, it is a way of ascertaining who God is by what He does and says, and then defining His love in agreement with that. It only opens a whole can of worms on His nature if one does not like or want to accept what we see, put it in its proper perspective, and apply love correctly. To say, oh that was just the old testament God. He isn't like that anymore, is wrong, and surely you know that. That is what opens a whole can of misconceptions about God and even more hodgepodged together beliefs and doctrines. It allows us to not see God in all His multifaceted glory because we don't like certain things. It is why so many hate Calvinism because it forces us to look at Him as He is, instead of the way we want to see Him. It makes them Yes He is love and He is loving, but those things are for His covenant people and not for those who reject the Son. Not for the wicked.
It makes them go to great illogical lengths to come up with a way they perceive makes Him more loving (but really doesn't)by saying He loves all equally so He gives all an equal chance at salvation, leaving the results up to them. What is illogical about it is that at the most crucial point of salvation, in which God acted in one way through all the millenia; at the most crucial point, the point where His Son suffers and dies, He changes and acts in a way He never acted before, travels a road He never traveled before, and suspends His choices His will, and yes His sovereignty, giving it instead over to man.
If we agree that the OT can be used in such ways then I can start citing it as proof that God gives us choices that we must exercise and that is just the beginning.
I do not see the correlation between the one thing and the other. At all. Please explain.
Here is my premise concerning the use of the OT to define God's nature. The OT is pre-Christ and one of the reasons that Christ came to this earth was to reveal the Father. (John1:18) and therefore the OT does not reveal the Father to us. I would posit that what we see in the OT is man's pre-Christ understanding of God, especially in the books of History. Add to this the fact that we can't judge what was written during those times unless we were there to experience those times.
There never was such a time as pre-Christ. There is a time of pre-incarnation of Christ. The entire OT is God revealing Himself. He is Father to everyone in the sense that we only exist because He made us, but He is Father, covenant Father, to His children. That is what Christ revealed to us. That in Christ, Christ is our brother and God is our Father, and we are His adopted children. He revealed Him
as Father. Yahweh was the covenant name in the old covenant with Israel, Father is our covenant name for God. I would quote all the scripture that supports it, but surely you are familiar with them and no need to lengthen the post. Ask if you don't know.
What do you mean by we can't judge what was written during those time unless we experience those times? That sounds like the Bible can't be trusted and we can't learn anything for sure, but I give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
A simple example of what I mean is found in Genesis 11:5. Did God come down to look at the city? Probably not, but from a primitive human viewpoint of God it made sense and was something one could understand. If you wish to go text-by-text I can further show you how it is unreliable to use the OT alone to define God's love.
I see this is addressing my question above.
Most often people recognize a metaphor as a metaphor, and that does not change its meaning but paints a picture of the meaning. Being "primitive" had nothing to do with it. It is also athropomorphic language. But forget things such as that for a moment. What about the things He does? Is that not to be trusted to be accurate?
If the premise is faulty the thesis is faulty. Does that mean that your premise was wrong? No, it just means that the support for it was inadequate. If we go text-by-text we are going to have to wrestle with a lot of apparent contradictions.
Best get to wrestling with them then, because there aren't any. But when one says that God is love therefore He loves all people equally and same way, you will scarcely get out of the first three chapters of the first book before you have come up against a monster of a contradiction. Now consider what would happen if you continued to hand on to the contradiction through the rest of the Bible even into the NT.
