Does God Love Every Individual Person in the Same Manner?

[The Archangel]

... there's no such thing as "man-centered reasoning". That phrase is nonsense.

Hmmm... If God requires Israel to do what is right in His eyes in Exodus:

There the LORD made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, [26] saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer.” (Exodus 15:25b–26 ESV)
​

And if the sinfulness of Israel is expressed in Judges as everyone did what was right in His own eyes:

[6] In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6 ESV)
​

Then it is demonstrated that you are simply wrong.

Man-centered reasoning is at the heart of all man's sinfulness. Romans 1 also makes this clear.

The Archangel

 

[thatbrian]

If a son shall ask

your heavenly Father

This is referring to God's children, not Satan's.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hmmm... If God requires Israel to do what is right in His eyes in Exodus:

There the LORD made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, [26] saying, “If you will diligently listen to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, your healer.” (Exodus 15:25b–26 ESV)
​

And if the sinfulness of Israel is expressed in Judges as everyone did what was right in His own eyes:

[6] In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 17:6 ESV)
​

Then it is demonstrated that you are simply wrong.

Man-centered reasoning is at the heart of all man's sinfulness. Romans 1 also makes this clear.

The Archangel

You are referring to the noetic effects of sin....
That is the status of (among other things) willful ignorance. It is the atheist in self-delusion for instance. No one denies the reality of that.
The problem is, the Calvinist often uses that non-phrase as a foil to simply dismiss and argument out of hand when their logic is exposed or when someone demonstrates their argument to be fallacious etc....
But "human-centered-reasoning" just simply means nothing in a vacuum.

It is used often to simply dismiss reasonable arguments in an attempt to suggest their deeper piety of the Determinist view.
It's nonsense.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

But, would you describe "Love" in similar terms?

In essence, why not?

But, the text doesn't say he hates actions... It plainly says He hates those who do evil.

Exactly....he only "hates" them inasmuch as they DO EVIL. What you are doing is denying the possibility of repentance. If an evil-doer repents, they are by definition no longer an evil-doer...they can only repent inasmuch as Christ died for his enemies. While we were still enemies, while evil-doers were still his enemies, Christ died for them.....
Because he loves THEM.
A man is not synonymous with what he does.

A person who does evil is, well, known by what he does. That's quite plain. I have no idea how anyone, such as yourself, could possibly miss that. The only reason I can think of is that you have to say that--in direct contradiction the text and its grammar--so that you can maintain your idea--in contradiction of scripture.

Translation: I simply willfully deny obvious truth of Scripture....("Man-centered-reasoning" no doubt)....
because we are not as wonderfully pious as the Calvinist with their "God-centered reasoning".. blah blah blah...
That's a fresh argument

The problem here is that God doesn't send actions to hell; He sends people who are unrepentant.

But not because he decided from eternity pass to simply hate them.
They do what he hates, and his wrath then, his hate directs itself towards the person.[/QUOTE]

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is referring to God's children, not Satan's.

And, what your view is doing is implying God only essentially loves his own children.....just like the EVIL do.

But God is better than evil men. God is love.
God sent his only begotten Son so that we who were not his children could be adopted as sons and daughters and BECOME co-heirs with Christ.

 

[The Archangel]

You are referring to the noetic effects of sin....
That is the status of (among other things) willful ignorance. It is the atheist in self-delusion for instance. No one denies the reality of that.
The problem is, the Calvinist often uses that non-phrase as a foil to simply dismiss and argument out of hand when their logic is exposed or when someone demonstrates their argument to be fallacious etc....
But "human-centered-reasoning" just simply means nothing in a vacuum.

So then, by your own admission above, the phrase isn't non-sense. There are times, though, it may not apply.

Even so, why do you limit the effects of sin to the intellectual or mental realm when the Bible clearly describes the effects of sin to be total? For instance, the pain women feel in childbirth isn't theoretical. The ground having to be worked by the sweat of the brow of man isn't merely a feeling. The idea expressed by Paul "In Adam all die" referring to his sin isn't some type of ideological fiction. The entirety of man, not just his mental faculties bears the affects of sin. If not, why are there diseases that people can and do get even though they've done nothing to bring on those diseases (ex. A non-smoker who gets lung cancer)? If the effects of sin are only noetic, why does all creation groan under the curse of God?

It is used often to simply dismiss reasonable arguments in an attempt to suggest their deeper piety of the Determinist view.
It's nonsense.

You mean like how people on your side retreat to nonsense labels like "Determinist" when you can't deal with a reasoned argument from scripture and, therefore, dismiss it? Yeah, thought so.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

In essence, why not?

Because then your definition of love is woefully inadequate. If you define the love of God in the same way you've defined "hate," then it is only related to a person's circumstances, not the person himself. If that is your view, as you've expressed it above, then it is you who have a woefully inadequate view of the love of God. We argue that God loves us personally, as individuals, and corporately, as the church, not in some superficial way where he give mere "prosperity" or good circumstances.

Exactly....he only "hates" them inasmuch as they DO EVIL.

The problem here is that we are not counted as evil because of what we do; rather we demonstrate the evil inside us when we sin. Jesus Himself said

[17] Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? [18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. [20] These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” (Matthew 15:17–20 ESV)​

Clearly, Jesus says the heart contains evil. Evil is what we are, not what we do.

What you are doing is denying the possibility of repentance. If an evil-doer repents, they are by definition no longer an evil-doer...they can only repent inasmuch as Christ died for his enemies. While we were still enemies, while evil-doers were still his enemies, Christ died for them.....
Because he loves THEM.
A man is not synonymous with what he does.

In what way have I ever denied the possibility (or the reality) of repentance?

Translation: I simply willfully deny obvious truth of Scripture....("Man-centered-reasoning" no doubt)....
because we are not as wonderfully pious as the Calvinist with their "God-centered reasoning".. blah blah blah...
That's a fresh argument

I'm not the one who claimed God hated actions, not people. I merely pointed out the text of Psalm 5, which clearly states that God hates "those...," and are people. They may be people who do evil, surely, but He does hate people. And, getting back to the Matthew 15 passage above, the heart is the repository of evil, so how can it be said that man is not "evil?"

You're denying the very grammar of scripture because it contradicts you.

But not because he decided from eternity pass to simply hate them.
They do what he hates, and his wrath then, his hate directs itself towards the person.

Why would you assume I'm arguing that God decided from eternity past to hate anyone?

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

He chose them to be his inheritance whilst he gave the other nations up to be ruled by other Elohim.

Of course I am.
That's a stock sequence of words you have been trained to put together, somewhat at random, with no relevance to the topic at hand.
We are not speaking of his "will" here at all.
We are speaking of "love" as being a part of his "nature".
His "will" has nothing to do with it.

I realize that (at least in general) Calvinists fail to realize that the phrase "man-centered view" is completely devoid of meaning. Therefore, it seems meaningful to you to blather it out. But in reality, "man-centered view" is a conglomerate of words which amounts to nothing, actually says nothing, and informs not a whit.
Man is made in God's image.
Man's thinks like God thinks.
Man is imbued with the powers of logic, reason etc......
Man suffers from the noetic effects of sin, that is true, but there's no such thing as "man-centered reasoning". That phrase is nonsense.

God isn't "SUPPOSED" to love in any particular way.
He just loves.
He IS love.
Love is a part of his nature, and the word "supposed" is not at all applicable.

One isn't even "supposed" to love in either one way or another. It isn't a matter of spiritual duty.

The fact that you keep speaking and thinking in these terms demonstrates what I have been saying.

Calvinists either don't understand what "love" is, or they've created a cognitive disconnect between God's nature and properties and his incidental dealings with mankind.

"Love" (as it pertains to God) is as much a fundamental property which he embodies as much as justice, holiness, self-sufficiency etc.
It is a description of WHAT and WHO he is.
By definition, he can't be "holy" in one sense and not another.
He can't be "just" in only one sense and not another.
He can't be "self-sufficient" in one sense and not another.

Similarly, he can't "love" in one way and not another.
SNIP

Who or what are the other Elohim?

 

[Yeshua1]

Because then your definition of love is woefully inadequate. If you define the love of God in the same way you've defined "hate," then it is only related to a person's circumstances, not the person himself. If that is your view, as you've expressed it above, then it is you who have a woefully inadequate view of the love of God. We argue that God loves us personally, as individuals, and corporately, as the church, not in some superficial way where he give mere "prosperity" or good circumstances.



The problem here is that we are not counted as evil because of what we do; rather we demonstrate the evil inside us when we sin. Jesus Himself said

[17] Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? [18] But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. [19] For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. [20] These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” (Matthew 15:17–20 ESV)​

Clearly, Jesus says the heart contains evil. Evil is what we are, not what we do.



In what way have I ever denied the possibility (or the reality) of repentance?



I'm not the one who claimed God hated actions, not people. I merely pointed out the text of Psalm 5, which clearly states that God hates "those...," and are people. They may be people who do evil, surely, but He does hate people. And, getting back to the Matthew 15 passage above, the heart is the repository of evil, so how can it be said that man is not "evil?"

You're denying the very grammar of scripture because it contradicts you.




Why would you assume I'm arguing that God decided from eternity past to hate anyone?

The Archangel

This entire discussion to me seems to involve with someone trying to show that it is just not fair to grant God the means to love just His own elect in a different way than he does all of his creations, as somehow we allow ourselves the right to love and hate, and yet we cannot "permit" God to do the same?
Does the creation really have the right to subject the Lord to run things the way that we would see as being the "better way?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Accept it as written is what we "do with it."
God does not delight in "wickedness"....
that's the context you already provided for us.

Therefore he will "hate" the "evildoers".....

By "hate" he means he will fight against, judge, destroy, wipe-out....pick your action verb....as long as it isn't "prosper" or something.

Thus, as you provided us the context, it is one's actions...lemme repeat...ACTIONS....he "hates" and abhors and will judge, and those that do them.
You just bolded it was "evil-doers" he "hated".

But an "evil-doer" is not the definition of that man as a man.
That's an assumption built into your theology not shared by us.

They that DO wickedly...he will abhor and judge etc....
But, God is able to separate the man himself from the actions he commits.
God can see the man and love him while also abhorring his actions, and if that man continues and commits to those acts of wickedness his justice means his disposition towards them turns towards abhorrence and "hate" and- barring repentance-....final judgement.

That is his justice in action.
And he will, if there be no repentance judge that man in righteousness for his deeds.

His love, however, means that that man himself, he will suffer on the cross and die for, because of his unending love in order that he might be saved. It is not love to love the lovable.
It is not love to love the perfect.
It is not love to love the sinless.
It is not love to only love one's own children.
It is love to love the unlovable.

It was never the man he hated...it is the unrepentant evil-doer...
That he must judge, and therefore he abhors.

The man himself, he died for, and he loves him.
The wicked love their own children:
Luke 11: 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Luke 11:12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

Luke 11: 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

But God loves the unlovable.
SNIP

This entire discussion to me seems to involve with someone trying to show that it is just not fair to grant God the means to love just His own elect in a different way than he does all of his creations, as somehow we allow ourselves the right to love and hate, and yet we cannot "permit" God to do the same?
Does the creation really have the right to subject the Lord to run things the way that we would see as being the "better way?"

 

[Yeshua1]

In essence, why not?

Exactly....he only "hates" them inasmuch as they DO EVIL. What you are doing is denying the possibility of repentance. If an evil-doer repents, they are by definition no longer an evil-doer...they can only repent inasmuch as Christ died for his enemies. While we were still enemies, while evil-doers were still his enemies, Christ died for them.....
Because he loves THEM.
A man is not synonymous with what he does.

Translation: I simply willfully deny obvious truth of Scripture....("Man-centered-reasoning" no doubt)....
because we are not as wonderfully pious as the Calvinist with their "God-centered reasoning".. blah blah blah...
That's a fresh argument

But not because he decided from eternity pass to simply hate them.
They do what he hates, and his wrath then, his hate directs itself towards the person.

[/QUOTE]
God loves His own elected/Covenant people in the same fashion Jesus stated that we must hate our parents and love Him... A Degree of love is implied here, as God can love all persons, and yet reserve the highest form of that just for His own chosen people!

 

[Benjamin]

When I put my children in bed at night I told them that, "Jesus loves them". So sad to think the Calvinist can not do the same. At least not honestly since their belief seems to be God only loves the specially pre-selected elect and they don't know the status of their children.

 

[thatbrian]

And, what your view is doing is implying God only essentially loves his own children.....just like the EVIL do.

But God is better than evil men. God is love.
God sent his only begotten Son so that we who were not his children could be adopted as sons and daughters and BECOME co-heirs with Christ.

Does God love Satan or his offspring?

 

[thatbrian]

When I put my children in bed at night I told them that, "Jesus loves them". So sad to think the Calvinist can not do the same. At least not honestly since their belief seems to be God only loves the specially pre-selected elect and they don't know the status of their children.

Do you let your children partake of the Lord's Supper from an age at which they can chew the bread? If not, why not?

 

[Benjamin]

Do you let your children partake of the Lord's Supper from an age at which they can chew the bread? If not, why not?

Are you suggesting a Calvinist suddenly becomes openly transparent with adults when delivering the gospel about the "fact" that God may not love them being the vast majority of people in His creation have not been specially pre-selected for His election affection? IOWs exactly when (at what age) does a Calvinist come clean with the "now, rest of the story"?

 

[delizzle]

Do you let your children partake of the Lord's Supper from an age at which they can chew the bread? If not, why not?

Because Paul gives specific instructions that we ought or examine ourselves before receiving communion.

 

[Rippon]

At least not honestly since their belief seems to be God only loves the specially pre-selected elect and they don't know the status of their children.

You don't need to use qualifers -i.e "pre-selected"--they are redundancies. Just use the word elect.

 

[Benjamin]

You don't need to use qualifers -i.e "pre-selected"--they are redundancies. Just use the word elect.

Your statement merely fallaciously begs the question, while demonstrating Determinist delusion, that pre-selection and election are synonymous.

 

[Benjamin]

You don't need to use qualifers -i.e "pre-selected"--they are redundancies. Just use the word elect.

Now, aside from the attempt at a red herring, perhaps you'd like to answer the question about the transparency/or lack there of within the Calvinist gospel and God's love? For children or adults if you can follow and stick to the subject back that far...

"When I put my children in bed at night I told them that, "Jesus loves them". So sad to think the Calvinist can not do the same. At least not honestly since their belief seems to be God only loves the specially pre-selected elect and they don't know the status of their children."

"Are you suggesting a Calvinist suddenly becomes openly transparent with adults when delivering the gospel about the "fact" that God may not love them being the vast majority of people in His creation have not been specially pre-selected for His election affection?"

 

[Rippon]

You don't need to use qualifers -i.e "pre-selected"--they are redundancies. Just use the word elect.

Actually you had said specially pre-selected elect. I don't know why you have to repeat the obvious. That one word --elect conveys in itself all your extras.

Of course the elect were especially selected. That's why they are called the elect. But pre-selected is an interesting word choice. They were selected. But "pre-selected" ? They were indeed selected before the creation of the world. Do you think that is unjust of the Lord?! Would you rather have him do the electing after the world was founded? Sorry, you can't make rules for the way God does things.