Does God love everyone?

Hello brothers. Glad to be back. Hope you have been well. I'm doing well myself now after spending some time in a slough of despond. Watching my country turn its back on God has been tough. I've been going in some theological circles, trying to decide what I believe about some finer points (e.g. peadobaptism, theonomy, the Sabbath, eschatology, etc.). After traveling a large circle, I came out pretty much where I started, except I might be a little more infralapsarian than I used to be, and a little more Irenic.
Also I've been through some political evolutions, having delved fully into libertarianism and then pulling back from it quite a bit.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to conversing with you guys when I have opportunity.
Keep up the good work.

 

Brother Agedman,

We are required to love our enemies because we are related to them in Adam who is the father of us all both seminally and genetically, however Adam is not the physical father of Christ, for we know the Holy Ghost came upon Mary impregnating her. This was so Christ could be a pure sacrifice and not inherit the sin nature that is handed down through Adam's seed. Therefore Christ is not the "neighbor" of all human beings, thus "love they neighbor" does not apply to Him in the same manner it does us. His neighbors are only his brothers who are related to him by being born of Him and by His Spirit.

Also I must point out, by your logic that Christ said "love your enemies", therefore Christ too must love all his enemies (both elect and non-elect), in order to be consistent you would have to then conclude He must also love the devil and all the devil's demons who oppose Christ as Satan is considered the chief enemy, adversary, and oppose of both God's children and Christ. I hope you don't believe this, do you? But you must if you want to be logically consistent.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Paul, in Athens on Mars Hill, is speaking to pagan idolaters when he says:
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

All of the pagan idolaters were the offspring of God and God loved them all. They were part of the creation of God.
When God created the world, the universe and all that is therein he looked upon it and said "it is very good." He loved what He had created, and that included "Lucifer" who later became the one that we know as Satan.
He also loved all the angels that he created, including the one third that followed Satan in his rebellion.
God is love. There is on one that he does not love or has not loved in this earth or universe. Why would anyone think otherwise?

 

John 14:6; 3:16-18; 3:36; 5:24; Mark 16:16, etc.
There is only one criteria of being in Hell succinctly pointed out by Christ in Mark 16:16:
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
--He that beleiveth not is damned. It is here that I usually here the "What about..", and "What if..." that start to question the integrity of the words of Jesus. You do believe them, don't you?

The question is in the "How"? You say it is be a hard determinism in eternity past, where everything is predetermined by God. I say that that view makes God a monster, cruel and vindictive. The Bible knows no such God.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit (defined in John 16:8-11), is one of conviction. He came to convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. And so he does. This is where salvation begins. God, in his sovereignty, has given man a free will to choose between good and evil, to choose to reject or receive Christ. If God didn't not give man that free will, that choice, then man would not be made in His Image and likeness would he? He would simply be a robot!

Yes, he got the message, that is He is omniscient. I thought you knew that. He knows the choices we make before we make them. On that basis He knows who the elect will be. He knows who will come.
And in the end, he will say to those teachers who had tried to imitate him, but never had a relationship with him, "I never knew you."

I didn't say that; you did. Salvation involves the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God. God does not force salvation on anyone.

God calls. Man has the choice to refuse. Even Stephen refutes your position here.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Faith is never a gift to the unregenerate and you have never been able to demonstrate that through scripture. You have failed each and every time. You can't do it. God does not give spiritual gifts, the fruit of the Spirit, etc. to the unsaved. It is one of the most ludicrous positions I have ever heard.
But as you say, he does give it to "his chosen," that is to the believers, once they become believers, but that is not what we were talking about.

Just like I give a gift to my son. Therefore he is forced to accept it? But he isn't. He can refuse it. He has the choice. No one is forcing him. In your theology the one who is receiving is being forced to receive. He has no choice. He simply a robot.

It is not a lie if it is never refuted, denied, or answered. It is a conclusion drawn by statements made that go unanswered. Icon answers "off topic," lamely. But will not answer even if he believes it or not. And if he does, why? It seems as if some are afraid to admit that they believe in sola fide because it will destroy their theology of predeterminism, and election. That is why I put in parenthesis (sincerely), for I was sincerely asking. I can't get a straight answer from others.

It isn't a lie. The Calvinistic portrayal of God is that He has created some, not for His glory, but for eternal damnation. Though they may hear and understand the gospel, and have the chance to receive the gospel, they will not because they are elected from eternity past to spend eternity in Hell. That is cruel and evil. It attributes evil to God.

 

I agree that there are those of the Calvinist camp that have stated such, just as there are those of the Calvinistic group who would state that it is a lie that God has love for the whole creation that He made.

BUT (and this is important) there are a growing number of the Calvinistic thinking that see those statements as inconsistent with the Scripture teaching, and are pushing back with the appropriate teaching on both the blood and the love.

It is time that the words "some in" or "there are those" when referring to the Calvinistic thinking.

It seems that even on this thread there are a few indicators that some (including me) who hold to the D. of G. have moved away from the extreme of some of the Calvinistic thinking that expresses no love and no blood shed for the unregenerate. The move is to the more Biblical standard presented in the Scriptures of limited atonement being determined upon belief and unbelief not shed blood, and God demonstrates the love over all His creation by providing sustenance and life (to all the plants and animals) as well as maintaining the limits of the destructive forces rather than a restricted love to only those chosen.

Such makes the more rigid, in their persuasion of a truth, rather uncomfortable and resistant to acknowledge the need of change, but more to the point, it is the love of Scriptures over creed that moves a person to modify a position in the face of scorn and rebuke from their "team."

There is no disputing the Scripture present that the people of EVERY part of the world will be represented at that time. It does so in a manner that even the casual reader will have to understand that no manner of grouping will be without representation.

There are those of both the non-cals and cals who teach that the whole and complete world will eventually come as a unified group to know and accept the Savior, that there will be no unredeemed, and that at that time the eternity begins. But that is just not the teaching of history, and much less the teaching of Scriptures.

DHK,
Both you and Rippon are essentially posting the same thinking, but not reasoning together. At least that is my assessment of what I have read.

Both of you are stating:

1) that EVERY grouping of the world will have a subgroup of the elect represented at that time.
2) that EVERY grouping of the world does NOT include every body from that group.​

The "what about" questions often reflect more about the person than it does about the doctrine, and that is applicable to any position in an argument.

God has displayed himself to every person and it matters not where they live or at what time. This is the statement of Romans.

God holds no person inexcusable for what that person does with the display God has presented to every person. This is the statement of Romans.

The believer is to care the message of reconciliation everywhere they may find themselves, be it on the road or at the home. That is the statement of the Gospels and Acts.

God has selected those who are to be His from every known and unknown place in the world, and they will be His by Christ. That is the clear statement of Romans and John.

 

No, not at all! He simply calls it a damnable heresy. I believe God's truth not your opinion which you have such a hard time facing.

My opinion on this verse doesn't count much. It is what God says that counts. God calls it a damnable heresy. Calvin's heresy. It is not but it is true. They are not my words, but God's.

Again, your opinion. Even the translators disagree, and that is obvious.
The ESV, if you noticed, capitalized "Master" as it refers to God. Christ is God. He never limited his atonement to a select few. The false teachers taught that he did. They said plainly that we are not of that select few, that is Christ did not die for us. This is very plain in the text.
Yes, "He is not our master; therefore we are not his servants," is what they taught, a damnable or destructive heresy as the ESV put it.

You are simply offering your philosophical rationalization of this text and not looking at the obvious meaning of it.

 

You may be right the more I think about it. We may agree more than we think about this aspect, and may be talking past each other.

 

Not at all, perhaps it's merely that you hold a misunderstanding, perfunctory, or incomplete picture as to the Person of God and His Providence? Job 2:10; Php. 1:29,30.

 

Well this is at least a start of an answer.

This would be good reasoning except, for how the statement by Christ is presented in the Gospel. It is presented as what the people considered God presented as the Law. Therefore, it is that manner that Christ was presenting that of God, and not merely making it applicable to humans relating only to humans.

Also, Christ answered the very point you are attempting to make when remarking about "who is the neighbor" and using the parable of the Samaritan and Jew. It is clear that the Jew's "neighbor" was NOT his brother or could be considered in any manner a relative.

As far as who or what impregnated Mary, that is irrelevant, for Christ was FULLY man and FULLY God in the hypostatic union. He had as much Adam as did Adam in the garden and as much God as God in the garden.

Therefore, God's standard that believer's are to meet, is also the standard that He meets. God doesn't expect the humankind to exceed what He does not establish for Himself any more that the potter designs a vessel that exceeds the authority of the potter.

Did not Christ love His enemies? Did He not weep over Jerusalem, declare judgment upon others and communities?

Did ever true love come without truth, judgment and justice? The Psalmist said that truth and mercy kissed. One cannot have the other in separate and it be love.

When the maniac came rushing out of the tombs, did Christ treat the demonic forces as an enemy, or as one who had authority over them to pronounce truth and judgment? What was their attitude toward Christ?

When in the wilderness, did Christ treat the father of all lies as an enemy or as one who had authority? What was the attitude toward Christ?

When the believer wrestles, do they do so as one who has no authority?

See, the problem with posts like the one made is that it would seem to embrace the teaching that there is some great enemy in which the only authority is what drives that enemy as evil and not the actual authority.

But, in the Scriptures, the "enemy of believers" isn't some monster of evil or demonic forces, but that of doubt and not being secure in using the authority of God. It is that which is expressed both in the Garden and in the Wilderness that would cause one to question the Sovereign Authority of God. It is that uncovered in the father of lies that would question the authority of God. All such evil is chained (using pilgrims progress example) it may only roar and seek to devour. The Scriptures present (Romans 8) that the believer (one who dwells in the Spirit that is has the Spirit within them) is MORE than a conqueror. The believer has the right to intimate audience before THE authority over all creation and boldly stand in His presence to implore at the ultimate authority.

Christ's love does not in any manner diminish the place nor torment of those who perish.

 

I sometimes have read of those who are long dead, "It pleased God...."

To often the believer does not consider that EVERYTHING that has ever touched their life is both for their benefit and pleasing to God.

This year, especially, I am reminding myself far more often by actually using the words, "It pleased God..."

Those three words are having quite an impact.

 

Hi Brother Agedman,

God is creator of the Law and therefore Lord of it. The Pharisees tried to throw the law at Christ, "2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day." (Matthew 12:2). Jesus responded, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." (Matthew 12:8), therefore you cannot conclude that just because "love they neighbor" is God's law and thus applicable to all human beings, therefore Jesus must love those for whom he said, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do" (John 8:44), rather he called them "vipers", nobody loves vipers.

The Samaritan and Jew parable does not refute my point. It only proves what we both agree on and that is that all human beings both elect and nonelect are neighbors of one of another, thus humans are to love all men, however you are contending that the “children of the devil” (John 8:44) are neighbors to the God man Jesus Christ, but how can that be true when scripture says, “15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?” (2 Corinthians 6:15)

It is true Christ took on the nature of Adam in human form and is as much man as he is God, but he did not take on the nature of Adam after the fall, but rather the sinless flesh nature that Adam had possessed before the fall. Paul said, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing”, is that the same flesh you believe Christ had, one that had “no good thing” in it? Also, scripture tells us, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin… for that all have sinned”, thus we see what makes man a sinner is the fall of Adam as all Adam’s children were “in Adam” at the time of the fall, but Christ was not in Adam’s loin’s when he fell as He came via the lineage of Holy Ghost who came upon the virgin Mary making her with child, Christ did not come through the physical lineage of Adam. If he had, he could not have been without sin. Therefore, there is no union between reprobate ancestors of Adam like there is with Christ and the elect children of God who are in Christ and become born of the Holy Spirit during their lifetime just like Christ was born of the Holy Ghost. This spiritual birth proves there is a clear union between the two that does not exist with reprobates. Unlike Christ, we do have a union with both elect and reprobate alike as we are all ancestors of Adam and inherited his fallen nature as we were in his loins at the time of the fall and he is the father of us all, therefore we are under obligation to love all human beings as our neighbors as is commanded.

The command you are basing your teaching on that Christ must love the nonelect is a general command by Christ that says “love thy enemies”, if this is true, since Satan is an enemy of Christ, must He love him too?

He was weeping over the elect Jews whom the Pharisees would not let Jesus get to, not the reprobate Jews. Jesus said, ““How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.” It was the rulers – the Scribes and Pharisees – who prevented these Jews from having contact with Jesus, not the Jews themselves, their desire was to follow Him. It was not the common people to whom these words of Jesus were directed, but their governors, rulers – the Scribes and Pharisees of whom Jesus said, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Matt. 23:38. Notice we read of the parents of the blind man whom Jesus healed, "His parents feared the Jews, for the Jews already had asserted that if any man did confess that He was Christ, he should be put out of the Synagogue.” (Jon. 9:22) and of Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, “For fear of the Jews.” *See Jon. 19:38). Does this take on the passage make sense?

What did the demons say to Jesus, “29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matthew 8:29). Demons are enemies of Jesus, the demons knew this, but their time to be tormented which God had afore predestinated had not yet come, as scripture tells us, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6). It sounds by your statement above you believe Jesus loves his enemies the demons as you say “did Christ treat the demonic forces as an enemy”? If this is what you believe, will He continue to love them when they are sent to eternal torment as “God changeth not”. Does he send them to Hell out of love? How can Christ love His enemies the devils and demons and yet the scripture still hold true that says “what communion hath light with darkness?”( 2 Corinthians 6:14). But yet you would say if I understand you correctly, Jesus has communion with the reprobate as He loves them and they are His neighbors? If Christ must love His enemies, he must also love Satan, this is a gross teaching.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Who holds a misunderstanding of the Providence of God? Look at the Scriptures you use:

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
--Job did not complain. But what was his position, and how did it come about?

Job 2:4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
Job 2:5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Job 2:6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
--God allowed Satan to do as he wished to Job. He broke out into severe boils--from head to foot.

Job 2:7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
Job 2:8 And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.
Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.
--Do you know the pain and suffering that comes from just one boil? Maybe not.
But Job was covered with them from head to foot. They are painful. But he didn't complain, nor did he charge God or complain to God like so many do--"why has God allowed this, or why has God afflicted me."
--It was from Satan.
Learn this well. God has allowed Satan to be the god of this world (2Cor.4:4), the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience, etc. The kingdoms of this world are his. Christ does not rule this world; Satan does.
As in Job, so it is now. God has permitted Satan to have reign over this world. But when he comes Satan and his powers will be defeated and Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. But he is not there yet.

What else did you suggest.
Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
--I am not sure why you posted this verse. If only you could apply the truth of it in your own life!

Here is the teaching of Paul.
Salvation is by faith, and salvation is a gift that must be received by faith. Salvation most of all is a privilege. It is a privilege to be saved; a privilege to be a child of God; a privilege to be a part of the bride, etc.

You believed on Christ. That was a privilege that you had that resulted in salvation.
Now, it is your privilege to suffer for him. Not only to believe, but also to suffer for his sake.
How much do you suffer for his sake? That is the question you now must ask yourself and apply to your life. This is where the metal meets the road.

Regularly I visit Islamic nations. I see the suffering that the believers endure and often endure it with them. American believers have a cushy life compared to what they go through. They do suffer for Christ. It is a privilege to suffer for his name.

What did Peter and John say:
Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

Resurrecting an old chestnut, aren't we.

Does God love everyone? Let me ask it this way, On that bright and glorious morning when the dead in Christ shall rise, and the glory of His resurrection share, when the saved of earth shall gather over on the other shore, and the roll is called . . .

. . . down under, who'll be there?

Any of God's loved ones? At that "moment," for the lack of a better word, does God stop loving the souls in Hell, or does He still love them?

 

Brother DHK,

What you fail to realize about the tribulations that fell upon Job, even though Satan was carrying them out, Job said, "the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." (Job 1:21), in other words Job said it was the Lord who did it. Was he lying? The very next verse says, "22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly." (Job 1:22) If Job did not sin when he said God did it, and he did not charge God foolishly in what he said, then it was the truth. Thus we see how God uses yes, even Satan, in accomplishing His purposes, therefore God is in control in this world right now as Satan is nothing more than His pawn as the case of Job shows us. Also, I would add Satan was able to do no more to Job than what God allowed.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
--It is quite evident that Job did not have understanding of those things that were taking place.
To ask "Was Job lying?" is a misleading question, one without foundation, with an implication that Job was omniscient privy to the inner workings of our Lord. Job simply trusted God. He lived by faith, and wouldn't accuse (or charge) any evil to God.

 

I have heard of folks who keep and love vipers.

As far as the rest of that part, you neglect that the Lord starts the whole section with the statement:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."​

He goes on and states:

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses (exceeds KJV) that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."​

Then He says:

"You have heard that the ancients were told..."​

Now all that was placed in this post so that you may understand that the CONTEXT of Christ's statements clearly disagrees with the direction that you would assign.

As one reads the rest of the chapter (5), one should not pick and choose what part of the discussion only applies to humankind and is not having direct bearing displaying the character and nature of God.

This doesn't make sense. From my FIRST post on this thread, I have contended that God loves and therefore humankind is to love both the elect and non-elect. What some would desire is to place God as not having to love what He demands humankind to love.

That is just incorrect thinking, for God is love, the author and embodiment of love, and all love displayed and shown by humankind has come from God as the ultimate source - be it the unregenerate who loves the family or the regenerate who more perfectly has access to that perfect love of God.

To prove the view that God does not require of Himself what He does of believers on this matter, one must show by Scriptures that Christ actually made such a declaration, for He represented and was God in the flesh. But there is not a single Scripture that displays that of Christ, but that justice and judgment that is foundational in love.

One cannot make either John 8:44 or 2 Corinthians 6:15 as a statement pertaining to the love of God for humankind, because in both cases it is a statement of comparison of the fellowship and harmony between two different families and not of one having determined love for the other, irregardless of family or heritage.

Some of what you state I agree. For Hebrews 7 states:

"For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;..." ​

And, that is the position of the Lord Jesus Christ at this point in time.
The purpose of Christ on earth was according to 2 Cor. 5:

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."​

So, part of your statement has traction.

However, the assumption of the view in which you are attempting to bolster at this point is based upon a fallacy which requires one to assume that God does not conform to the expected attributes that He imposes upon the believer.

Because that argument has not been supported, then it follows that this port of your post is merely showing agreement with the nature of Christ and not showing proof that God is not required to display the same character trait that He would demand of believers.

Finished response in the next post.

 

When Satan appears before God in Job, does God show anything other than love toward that creation?

When Christ is tempted in the wilderness, does Christ show anything other than love toward that creation?

When throughout Scriptures those that oppose and reject God, or attempt to pervert (as Ballim) the truth, does God not bring judgment and justice as love obliges toward all that do wrong?

So, it isn't that God does not love, but that authority in which God must, by the unchangeable nature, demonstrate that love in justice, judgment toward them that are appointed to the flames, and, toward the elect, in forgiveness and cleansing.

Not really.

Because the actual statement of Christ doesn't support such thinking. (Luke 13):
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!"

Christ is not speaking of just the Pharisees, but the history of the city - Jerusalem. And it was certainly the "common people" to whom this was directed as well as to those who were the religious righteous at any time throughout history - including the tribulation time when two more prophets will be martyred in the city. Jerusalem even before it was named Jerusalem up until the return of Christ has and will remain a bloody city.

These are all great questions so let me see if I can address them - rhetorical as they may be asked - for they deserve attention.

You ask:

Certainly.
For that is why else would He cast the unregenerate into the eternal flames. If it were for sin, then surely the place would be nothing but a purgatory in which some wages could be repaid. If it was for hate, then there would be "toleration" or moderation of the flames such as indicated by the statement of Christ "it will be more tolerable ..." when pronouncing judgment upon various places.

2 Corinthians 5 states that the "love of Christ controls us." How much more will the love of God control the destiny of those who would despise His son and His own adopted children. Humankind may consider it an act of hate, but it is love manifested as justice and judgment.

See what Deuteronomy 10 states:

"17 For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. 18 He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. 19 So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name."
​

There is no way to render "alien" than one outside of the family. In this case the family of Israel and by extrapolation the family of the elect.

I have combined the rest of the question so I may answer them as one - for actually they are asked as one thought.

You seem to place love as exclusive to communion. But it is not. Love knows no bounds, for it just "is." The same is found in the statement, "God is love." There of course is no Scriptures stating, God is hate. Yet that is exactly the condition that some would impose upon God by placing the love as conditional.

God does not love conditionally, or all His attributes and salvation would be changeable and subject to outside forces. But as you stated, God does not change.

Here then one must conclude, either God is love, or God is changeable and conditionally able to be affected in not only the matter of love, but other areas, also.

"Communion" is fellowship not of some casual acquaintance might have, but a more intimate friendship. Love does not mean one must have intimate fellowship.

For example, I may love my neighbor, and if the neighbor needs aid or assistance demonstrate that love in such a capacity. Such is the general love of all creation that God expresses through the care and sustenance. That INCLUDES all that given over to opposing God. Hence, the expressions of authority and not hate when Christ demonstrates dealing with such powers.

The teaching is not bloody (gross), but placing the authority of God into the proper perspective while acknowledging exactly what the Scriptures teach - "God is love."

 

'Sola Fide' - 'faith alone'. Like it or not, this is the ONLY passage in the entire Bible that directly addresses 'faith alone':

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Jas 2

 

I am well aware that no simile/parable will be as accurate as the scriptures as many of them, some will find gaping holes in as you did mine. The point I was alluding to was the fact that we have not the will(not free but bound by sin) or faculty to recover ourselves from the fallen state we are/were in. That when the gospel is preached to deafened ears, it whizzes either past their ears or over their heads. To be dead in transgressions and sins is being dead to God's righteousness.

 

It matters not if I like it or don't like it, or whether you do or not, the verse isn't addressing sola fide nor does it dismantle it as you believe. 2 Timothy 2:15.