Does God love everyone?

You're one confused fella'.Of course God predetermined -- that's what predestination means.God does nothing on a whim.Why you non-Cals keeping saying such tommyrot is something to behold.I leave it to God whatever pleases Him.He is the Designer of all.To charge Him with whimsy is blasphemous.

You have no idea what you are taliking about.The Bible is front-and-center for Calvinists.The Word of God has formed our theology.

You really don't know what a Calvinist is.And then,to top it off,you clearly don't know the definition of hyper-Calvinism.

Listen closely.I have repeated this same thing scores of times on the BB --every true believer whether a Calvinist or not -- is elect.Calvinists are not claiming that they alone are His sheep.Got that?Or will you dredge up that nonsense again despite the facts?

A full AMEN to all of that!

It would really be honorable of you to actually quote folks saying the things you attribute to a whole class of folks.

Do you deny the truth of Romans 9:15,18 and Ephesians 1:4;2 Timothy 1:9;2 Thess.2:13;Matt.25:34 and other passages with a mere wave of your mortal hand?!

Now what did I just get through explaining to you about that blasphemous tag of "whim" applied to God!

Better watch your tongue.God is in charge.He does whatever He wishes --whenever He wishes.He determines,He decrees,He establishes,He sets things up and He orders things torn down.He elects some according to His good pleasure.And He foreordains the destiny of the wicked.To deny any of the preceeding is to deny the God of the Bible.

God's love is limited to those whom He chose before the foundation of the world.He has not chosen to give everyone faith and repentance -- only the small floch of which He is the Chief Shepherd.

[/quote]

The only Rice who knew what he was talking about regarding such subjects were Luther Rice and N.L.Rice.If you look to JRR as your guide in such matters you will be following gross error.

 

You know Rippon I don't believe your really interested in whether or not I believe in Calvinism. All your interested in is insulting people and driving people away from Calvinism. You make me want to hate it and you. If being a Calvinist mean's I would be like you. Then I sure don't ever want to make that mistake.
MB

 

You used the quote function to copy my post numbered 218.I don't understand all the anger you have.Is that post of mine that rotten?I'd like others to weigh in.I think MB's seeing things which aren't there.

 

When some people's autonomous free will is threatened, they sometimes react like that.

 

Rippon acts like that quite often...is this directed to him?

 

No, I was talking about you:saint: Although you and I disagree (most of the time...I actually think I saw some where last week were we agreed), I don't think you usually act the way in which I was referring to.

 

Rippon, I think you and I both have a way of getting people cranked up because we speak so directly to the issues. Not much soft language like people expect these days. But none of that excuses MB's behavior lately. He's clearly overboard, and I'm surprised the mods haven't gotten involved in it.

 

Yes siree,Bob (or,er,J.D.).

 

Yep,this thread is almost 5 years of age. I had said some pretty important things then,and I can just use them again when we go over the same ground again and again.

 

Some "interesting things" have been said on this thread. Interesting things with which I totally disagree.

Allan informed us that "God's grace is not discriminating."

Benjamin related that The Calvinistic "doctrine of predestination is really hyper-Calvinistic dogma that does the work of satan upon seekers."

MB told us :"If you stay with Scripture you'd have to deny total depravity."

 

More "Interesting" Quotes From Posters

MB : "Election doesn't have salvific value."

Allan : "Scripture does not in any manner sate 'all of the drawn ones are given to Christ.' "

Allan : "God reveals truth to all men everywhere."

 

I will not be quoting Skypair because he is not here to defend himself. But he sure is quotable! LOL!

 

Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son he receiveth. Verse 8 If ye be without chastisement, wherefore all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not son's. No love, No chastisement, simple. St. John 11-3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. What a strange message to be sent to Christ if he loved the whole world. Why in verse five would it say, Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister,and Lazarus if it was not because they were the elect ? St. John 13-1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew his hour was come that he should depart out of the world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. It doesn't say, having loved the world, he loved them unto the end. You people that say that God loves everyone the same, go tell your wife how much you love her and you would die for her, now tell her also that you love every woman in the world with the same love you lover her with and see how well that goes over. What ! you can't do this, you have too, to be Christ like. :love2:

 

Liked your post..most insightful :thumbs:

 

Romans 9:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

Post 59
My point is that God gave them over - after - rejecting His Truth and/or Him, not prior to it. In this we note that God was doing something with/towards them (those who will reject Him) via various means (Creation, Conscience, or even to the Gospel itself), and that something is revealing Himself and Truth to them. 2 Thes 2:10-12 states they rejected the gospel that could save them, therefore God sent a strong delusion to believe [their own] lie. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

And one must take into consideration that God had a great deal of mercy on Esau and Blessed him mightily, at least scripture states it so. That makes no sense if God detested and rejected him.. to despise him.

Something that NEEDS to be recognized here is the context of what is being stated. Now there are 2 kinds of election; One is to salvation and One is to Purpose. Note the passage you quote. The context establishes that the election here is NOT to salvation but purpose. - having done NEITHER good nor evil (this wasn't the reason God elected) but the PURPOSE of God - According to election - might stand.

The election here is to Purpose and the purpose is through whom God would bring His people. Israel is God's ELECT people yet not all that people are saved. Now for MORE clarification, go back to the OT and look at the passage being referenced. It specifically states they (Jacob and Esau) are equated AS 2 different NATIONS. When God chose Jacob, He was choosing to Himself a Nation FOR Himself. The very FACT that the OT says God blessed Esau proves also the 'hate' Paul is referencing is not about detesting or rejecting for salvation (why reject Esau if sin is not equated in the picture?) but establishes the other definition of 'hate' (to love less in comparison) applies here.

 

I am late to party on this question but I want to weigh in.

There is a biblical principle that I would like to reveal:

1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

The principle is that God's love is never static. God's love always - always - is involved in action or a command to action.

Galatians 6:2 talks about love in action. "Bear one another's burdens and thus fulfill the law of Christ."

John 13:34, "A new command I give you: love one another."

Our Lord's command was to do something with that love; to display it in action. Likewise God displays His love and His love is never in vain.

God's love is not exercised in futility. If God truly loves those that are perishing He would not allow them to perish. It has nothing at all to do with not violating the supposed self-autonomous free will of the individual. It has all to do with the nature and character of God. What action of God can be characterized as futile? Of course the answer is none. So, why would God love those who are destined to perish?

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

God endures those that are perishing on behalf of those He has called to salvation. In other words His love is directed towards His sheep; those that are called to salvation.

 

Yet historically, in reformed teaching, God's common grace or perhaps another wording would be omnibenevolence or general love (not to be confused with His specific Love [which Dr. Bob stated earlier in the thread]) is part of the doctrines of Mainstream Calvinism.. spoken to even in Westminister Standard which states:

Now why do I speak of the 'Free offer' instead of God's love? because they were typically seen as one and the same, or at least speaking to the same idea.

For instance how about J. I. Packer's view:

or someone ealier? how about what about John Howe The Goodness of God, Part II preached in 1691:

As with one of my previous post to which I reference back to Phil Johnson of Spurgeon.net, and Monergism, who both stated that a denial of common grace, or that God has no love for the non-elect are views found in Hyper-Cal (though it does not make one an HC), it might better be said that it reveals a tendency toward HC.

LET ME STATE HERE - I am not calling anyone a Hyper-Cal.. I'm only showing what Calvinists have stated and reference this view 'among' some of the Hyper views (or those not in line with the historical mainline teachings)

here is another one from CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) which is also Calvinistic states:

Remember, these are 5 point Cals making these statements, not me (who is a non-cal)... so I believe their views and great many others hold a great deal weight to subject of love with respect to the Calvinistic position.

Of course there are disagreements in the ranks, but it stands out quite clearly there must be something to the position even if you don't agree.

 

Good to see you Alan and thanks for sharing your view. On a personal note, I absolutely abhor these threads which set out to deny the genuine love of God (His unchanging Omnibenevolent Nature) brought forth through creation in His promise for all and do so merely for the sake of supporting their theological system while they seemingly festively celebrate “any” interpretation that they presumptuously perceive as confirming their own misguided thoughts that God is a God of hate!

These threads are so sad…

That is all...