Does God love everyone?

[Internet Theologian]

Bro. Rippon with all due respect you're fighting a battle in which at least two will not concede who should have done so long ago. Both misrepresent what you say, to put it mildly, and no matter what proof, exegesis, documentation, or sound doctrine you continuously offer them they will not be persuaded by those facts. Matthew 7 comes to mind.

 

[Rippon]

So, perhaps some do not look at the rebuke one has for sinful living, and ultimately the hell, and the lake of fire as chastisement.

Hell is not chastisement! Whew! When one is being chastised one is getting instruction and training and discipline. That is not the lot of those in Hell.

Did God not send Jonah to Nineveh? Why? Was there in that city those that were "outside the family of God?" Or what of Babylon? What of Jerusalem, Sodom, Gomorrah, Jerico, Ai, Egypt?

You misunderstand. The Lord has His people from among all nations, tribes, languages and peoples. The term family of God has no national boundaries.

I remind you that embrace the Doctrines of Grace, but in a modified form. This is one of the areas in which I consider that the fore folks got it wrong because (as was with some) the times they lived were as reactionary as could ever be found. So some statements of belief must be a product of the times and yet there are those theologians who would attempt to bring such into application irregardless of the truth and in direct opposition to the Scriptures.

I strongly disagree. If you read some reformed Confessions I think you will find wisdom in explaining and applying God's Word. Start a thread on the London Confession of 1689 and tell us where and why you differ with it.

It is not that God is "self-centered." God wants folks to place Him in the appropriate relationship to all the creation - as the creator. That is not "self-centered."

God is holy -- pure. The primary thing about Him is that He wants to bring glory to Himself. There is no sin there at all. We, on the other hand, should not seek to glorify ourselves. It is sinful on our part if we seek our own glory. He is indeed self-centered and it's all good. I wouldn't have it any other way.

"Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." is showing that God placed the younger over the older, not that God despised in the manner of hate some would assign. Some would assign hate as detest, rather the word "hate" can also mean "love less." I hate liver, and love steak. It isn't that I "detest" liver, but that in comparison to steak, there is little favor shown.

Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved less" is just as accurate a translation.

Turn that around and see how silly your thinking is :Jacob I hated less and Esau I hated more. No, take Scripture at face-value as you claim to do. Jacob I loved and Esau I hated stands as scriptural truth.

By the way, point out any translation that renders it your way. It would still be wrong but I'd be interested about it.

 

[agedman]

Hell is not chastisement! Whew! When one is being chastised one is getting instruction and training and discipline. That is not the lot of those in Hell.

Really? Did the rich man not ultimately understand not only his own plight, but receive instruction as to the parameters and separation of his abode, and then receive further instruction as to what could be done for his brothers?

Perhaps, you think of hell differently than what I consider the Scriptures show. There is weeping not just over loss, but the longing that loved ones not come to that place, so there is instruction. There is training to bring the mind and heart to recognize God for who He is, and as the rich man had to proclaim,"Father Abraham." There is discipline, on going forever, never ending, and no let up.

You misunderstand. The Lord has His people from among all nations, tribes, languages and peoples. The term family of God has no national boundaries.

Your statement is basically holding to a view that God has no love for those "outside."

However, I see the believer as reflecting the character of God. So for example, God demonstrates His love, to ALL that some "might be saved" and Paul emulated that love "to all" that some might be saved. (Corinthians) Would it have been better had Paul only loved those in the Church? What use is a missionary that has no love for the people in which they go?

I strongly disagree. If you read some reformed Confessions I think you will find wisdom in explaining and applying God's Word. Start a thread on the London Confession of 1689 and tell us where and why you differ with it.

That wouldn't be worth the effort. For even on this thread where I have shown you by logic that certain thinking is in error, you don't see what I see. So, If I went into other areas, would it make any different.

God is holy -- pure. The primary thing about Him is that He wants to bring glory to Himself. There is no sin there at all. We, on the other hand, should not seek to glorify ourselves. It is sinful on our part if we seek our own glory. He is indeed self-centered and it's all good. I wouldn't have it any other way.

First, "The primary thing about Him is that He wants to bring glory to Himself" is wrong. God doesn't have to do any such work. The Scriptures teach that all creation resounds with the Glory of God. He doesn't need to "bring glory to Himself," He already has it.

Because of this thinking you expressed, there is some idea that humans can bring glory to God. Not so, we may praise Him, we may glorify Him. But no part of creation can add to the glory of God. He has no desire or need for His creation to bring Him glory any more than He has desire or need for His creation to bring Him Holy.

He IS Glory. He IS Holy. He IS love.

Turn that around and see how silly your thinking is :Jacob I hated less and Esau I hated more. No, take Scripture at face-value as you claim to do. Jacob I loved and Esau I hated stands as scriptural truth.

I thought you were given wisdom as a student of the languages. Perhaps I was wrong.
That you chose to place "hate" as despised, is wrong because Esau was still of the loins of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel. So it must be that Esau was not despised, but loved less. Did Isaac love Esau less than Jacob? Actually, by the account given, he preferred Esau, because he represented a "real man's man" - hair and all. So Isaac was tricked into giving the first born blessing to Jacob.

But, more to the point of the "hate" being taken as "loved less" look below at the account given by Joshua (24):

Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel and for their heads and their judges and their officers; and they presented themselves before God. Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods. ‘Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River, and led him through all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac. ‘To Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau, and to Esau I gave Mount Seir to possess it; but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.
​

Seems God didn't despise Esau, but again, loved him less, because he gave him a mountain and took Jacob to Egypt.

By the way, point out any translation that renders it your way. It would still be wrong but I'd be interested about it.

Nope, don't have to. It wouldn't make any difference because apparently, the language lessons were lacking.

I showed, above, from the OT that God did not "despise" Esau, but gave to him. If Esau was "outside" then according to what you have said, God wouldn't have communicated with Esau at all, nor had any dealings with Esau.

But He did.

So, the question remains unanswered.

Does God require of believers a characteristic that He does not demand of Himself?

Or, to put it another way, Does God demand of believers to Love their enemies and yet not require of Himself to love enemies?

 

[Rippon]

Your statement is basically holding to a view that God has no love for those "outside."

It makes me wonder what you are responding to. Re-read what I said.

That wouldn't be worth the effort.

Oh, so you are so much wiser than those giants that have gone before. I see.

First, "The primary thing about Him is that He wants to bring glory to Himself" is wrong. God doesn't have to do any such work. The Scriptures teach that all creation resounds with the Glory of God. He doesn't need to "bring glory to Himself,"

Nothing pleases Him more than receiving glory. He requires it of us to give Him glory.

That you chose to place "hate" as despised, is wrong
So it must be that Esau was not despised, but loved less.

But, more to the point of the "hate" being taken as "loved less"

Some snips from Robert Haldane's commentary on Romans follows.
"Why then refuse to admit the natural and obvious signification of the passage? If God says that He hated Esau, are we to avoid receiving God's testimony?"

"To be hated on account of Adam's sin and of their own corrupt nature, is common to all men with Esau who are not of the elect of God; and in Esau's case this is exhibited in one instance. Nothing, then, is said of Esau that might not be said of every man who shall finally perish."

"In its obvious and literal meaning, what is said of Jacob and Esau must be true of all the individuals of the human race before they were born. Each one of them must either be loved or hated of God."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The remarkable thing is not that God hated Esau, but that He loved Jacob.

 

[agedman]

God hated Esau enough that He gave him an inheritance. An inheritance that would allow him protection and survival in the coming drought. God sent Jacob to Egypt for such protection and survival.

Certainly, God loved Jacob more than Esau. A matter of degree not of polar opposite.

It is important to also remember that the statement in Romans of "Jacob and Esau" refer to the the book of Malachi which is speaking of the nation that came from Jacob and the nation that came from Esau. It is NOT discussing the two men specifically in Malachi and quoted in Romans. Therefore, it follows that the contrast between the chosen and not chosen is not based upon love, but upon the purpose of God and what God sees as the response to light. As a result, Edom has done much evil and God has multiple times used Edom as a tool against the unrighteousness of His chosen.



There are reformed folks who want to cling to a this matter of Jacob being loved and Esau being hated and build a presentation of God that is inconsistent with that I find in Scriptures.

As much as I admire their thinking in many areas, this is one place in which I really consider some got off at the wrong station. As a result, because no one wants to abandon the crowd, when one leader (or more) got off, the whole got off. That left the train with a lot less folks who would go on to the next station and arrived at truth.

Now, there is great push back from those who got off at the wrong station, and want to defend that station as truth rather than acknowledging they are just not at the right place.

I am reminded of two very small towns in Texas that both wanted the post office located in their town. The post office was important because the town with the post office would appear on maps and get the railroad and therefore be recognized. There was quite a feud going on and appeals made all the way to the President of the U.S. Finally, the president put the post office between the two towns and named the place, "Garland" after a member of the government who never came to see what was named after him.

Some readers may remember the word "Garland" because it was in the news when some religious folks wanted to shoot up an art exhibition, and a bit of weather knocked over some houses and some people were killed a few weeks ago.

 

[MB]

God hated Esau enough that He gave him an inheritance. An inheritance that would allow him protection and survival in the coming drought. God sent Jacob to Egypt for such protection and survival.

Certainly, God loved Jacob more than Esau. A matter of degree not of polar opposite.

It is important to also remember that the statement in Romans of "Jacob and Esau" refer to the the book of Malachi which is speaking of the nation that came from Jacob and the nation that came from Esau. It is NOT discussing the two men specifically in Malachi and quoted in Romans. Therefore, it follows that the contrast between the chosen and not chosen is not based upon love, but upon the purpose of God and what God sees as the response to light. As a result, Edom has done much evil and God has multiple times used Edom as a tool against the unrighteousness of His chosen.



There are reformed folks who want to cling to a this matter of Jacob being loved and Esau being hated and build a presentation of God that is inconsistent with that I find in Scriptures.

As much as I admire their thinking in many areas, this is one place in which I really consider some got off at the wrong station. As a result, because no one wants to abandon the crowd, when one leader (or more) got off, the whole got off. That left the train with a lot less folks who would go on to the next station and arrived at truth.

Now, there is great push back from those who got off at the wrong station, and want to defend that station as truth rather than acknowledging they are just not at the right place.

Well said, I have to give this a big amen. Many do not read on and is why they do not understand.

I am reminded of two very small towns in Texas that both wanted the post office located in their town. The post office was important because the town with the post office would appear on maps and get the railroad and therefore be recognized. There was quite a feud going on and appeals made all the way to the President of the U.S. Finally, the president put the post office between the two towns and named the place, "Garland" after a member of the government who never came to see what was named after him.

Some readers may remember the word "Garland" because it was in the news when some religious folks wanted to shoot up an art exhibition, and a bit of weather knocked over some houses and some people were killed a few weeks ago.

Not sure I'd want to live there.
MB

 

[Rippon]

You are aware that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, right?
His Epistles are written to largely Gentile believers.
Do you believe that Ephesians 1:4,5 also applies to you?
Do you believe that Romans 8:28-39 applies to you? Is that an encouraging promise for you?
In verse 33 Paul writes : Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?
Who are the chosen MB? Yes, that's right --the elect. Nothing will separate us from the love of Christ. It does not refer to the elect and the non-elect --but only to the elect.

Have you made your calling and election sure? as 2 Peter 1:10 enjoins us to do? And of course 2 Cor. 13:5 is related to the former.
____________________________________________________________________________
MB thinks all of the above is dumb in his estimation, but I really want him to answer my questions about these references.

 

[agedman]

You are aware that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, right?
His Epistles are written to largely Gentile believers.
Do you believe that Ephesians 1:4,5 also applies to you?
Do you believe that Romans 8:28-39 applies to you? Is that an encouraging promise for you?
In verse 33 Paul writes : Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?
Who are the chosen MB? Yes, that's right --the elect. Nothing will separate us from the love of Christ. It does not refer to the elect and the non-elect --but only to the elect.

Have you made your calling and election sure? as 2 Peter 1:10 enjoins us to do? And of course 2 Cor. 13:5 is related to the former.
____________________________________________________________________________
MB thinks all of the above is dumb in his estimation, but I really want him to answer my questions about these references.

Rippon,
Of course God loves His own adopted children. I don't think that is in dispute in this thread.

What I don't see, that you apparently do, is the exclusivity of that love to only the elect in Scriptures.

I see God loving the elect as God loved Jacob. An inexpressible tenderness that is specific and peculiar to each child of His. A love that is abundant and everlasting. A love that prepares and greatly endows the child with all good. A love that stirs the child to abide in Him, and allow His Spirit to manifest itself through gifts and fruit that all may benefit.

I also see God loving the non elect as God loved far less Esau. That care and concern that warns yet, when unheeded, allows them to reap the justice and judgment for their evil, and does not withhold the wages of the sinfulness. He gives such blessing that they may live long and prosper for they have no prosperity in eternity. That He arranges them in order against the believer to ravage and destroy what the believer holds precious of this world, and He uses them to cause the believer to reminder to find all sufficiency in Him.

From a personal and practical perspective, I don't use what I hate, but I often use what I love less.

 

[Rippon]

Your irrational "loved-less" routine has got to be trashed. It's not biblical in the least. I love it far less than the scriptural doctrine. ;-)

 

[agedman]

Your irrational "loved-less" routine has got to be trashed. It's not biblical in the least. I love it far less than the scriptural doctrine. ;-)

Then look at the Greek and prove me wrong.

Show me by example in Scripture that God ignores and has no communication with those that, according to your statement(s), He despises.

I suppose that there are some who do not recognize that God isn't an "on / off" switch, but does moderate His attention and love according to His purpose and desires.

To say that God loved Israel more than Edom is accurate.
To say that God loved Edom less than Israel is accurate.

If you don't think so, then prove your view by Scriptures. Here is a start:
From "Strong's Greek"

3404 miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

Lk 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate (3404 /miséō, 'love less' than the Lord) his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (NASU).

[Note the comparative meaning of 3404 (miséō) which centers in moral choice, elevating one value over another.]

Note: all the bold above was my add for showing the emphasis.

 

[Rippon]

Hate is figurative in Luke 14:26,27;Matt.10:37 and literal in Mal. 1 and Romans 9.

 

[agedman]

Hate is figurative in Luke 14:26,27;Matt.10:37 and literal in Mal. 1 and Romans 9.

There is no reason to suggest that "hate" is not literal in all the places it is used.

Just not defined as "detest" but as loved less.

For example, in Malachi, God is comparing Jacob's relationship to Esau. He is not saying that Esau and Edom are despised, but that they will not receive what blessedness Jacob will ultimately get, and that what they do have will be destroyed because of inappropriate use and abuse.

It is a matter of degrees of blessing and not blessing, of degrees of judgment and ultimate redemption from judgment.

God ends the statement in Malachi 1 stating what "men will call" Edom, but that is not an indication of what God may ultimately determine. For example, in another matter in which God caused a separation is over Ishmael - to whom Esau took refuge and wives. Ismael was put out of the camp of Abraham and God cared and gave an inheritance to him. It wasn't of the same kind as Isaac, and ultimately, the inheritance was wasted and abused, but it shows, by example, the principle of God loving less - not detest, and not abandon.

 

[Rippon]

The Net note for Luke 14:26 on this issue says :"This figurative use operates on a relative scale. God is to be loved more than family or self."

In a parallel passage, Matt.10:37 :"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

 

[agedman]

The Net note for Luke 14:26 on this issue says :"This figurative use operates on a relative scale. God is to be loved more than family or self."

In a parallel passage, Matt.10:37 :"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

And this disagrees with my posts?

I don't see how using Luke 14:26 and / or Matthew 10:37 in any manner invalidates what I have posted.

Rather, it can be seen that love is modulated. It is not an "on/off" switch, but that of a rheostat, in which may be expressed in words such as more or less, in which Luke 14 and Matthew 10 do.

Luke 14:26:

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple"​

There is no reason to not take that same meaning over to other uses of the word in the NT.

One does not say, God is love, and mean it to be God only loves some and despises all others.

That view held by some of the reformed is wrong and (imo) reactionary.

That God loves all, and has selected some is what is presented in Scriptures.

A human example is when I go to the grocery. I love bananas, I walk up to all the bananas in which I already stated I love, and select from that group that I love those that I will take and claim as my own. That I do not take the others is no business of the bananas, cannot be questioned as unjust, and is not the concern of the other people in the store.

As Martin posted a bit earlier, "The remarkable thing is not that God hated Esau, but that He loved Jacob."

 

[DHK]

You are aware that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, right?
His Epistles are written to largely Gentile believers.
Do you believe that Ephesians 1:4,5 also applies to you?
Do you believe that Romans 8:28-39 applies to you? Is that an encouraging promise for you?
In verse 33 Paul writes : Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?
Who are the chosen MB? Yes, that's right --the elect. Nothing will separate us from the love of Christ. It does not refer to the elect and the non-elect --but only to the elect.

Have you made your calling and election sure? as 2 Peter 1:10 enjoins us to do? And of course 2 Cor. 13:5 is related to the former.
____________________________________________________________________________
MB thinks all of the above is dumb in his estimation, but I really want him to answer my questions about these references.

He was an apostle to the Gentiles but his love for the nation of Israel was unwavering, perhaps even greater than for the Gentiles. Who would ever question it? Such love that he would trade places that he should be condemned for all eternity rather than them! Unfathomable love for the nation of Israel!

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

And again,
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Though he was an apostle to the Gentiles his custom was to go first to the Jew and then to the Gentile.
Everywhere he went he went to the synagogue first. This was his pattern to his dying day. Even when he went to Rome he gathered the Jews together and spoke to them.

Act 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
--These were the Jews whom he first had contact with.

 

[Rippon]

DHK, for once, and this may come as a shock, I agree with your post.

But you quoted my post number 328 and your reply had nothing to do with mine --why not?

 

[DHK]

DHK, for once, and this may come as a shock, I agree with your post.

But you quoted my post number 328 and your reply had nothing to do with mine --why not?

I was simply reading through since my last post. I read yours which seemed to be an emphasis on Paul being an apostle to the Gentiles, and since I didn't see an answer to it I decided to answer it.

 

[MB]

If God is Love then it stands to reason there is no hate in Him for those He created. Especially if God is the perfect God we should all believe that he is.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This verse says above that God loved the world this as I read, it means every one in it.

Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
This includes all men because it says any man.


1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

This also proves no one is left out for a chance for Salvation.


Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
These verses tell us how we can be saved.
MB

 

[Rippon]

If God is Love then it stands to reason there is no hate in Him for those He created.

But for you to believe that is to deny clear Scripture that states he hates --yea despises some people.

Especially if God is the perfect God we should all believe that he is.

God certainly is perfect. But you have no right to create Him in your own way --that's idolatry.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It was in this manner that God manifested His love --by giving His one and only Son so that believing ones will not perish eternally but have everlasting life.

This verse says above that God loved the world this as I read, it means every one in it.

His own --not from among the Jews only but from the Gentiles scattered around the world --from every nation, tribe, language and people.

Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
This includes all men because it says any man.

"Any man" is not in the original. If anyone enters in through Him as the gate will be saved.

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I have already dealt with these passages earlier.

This also proves no one is left out for a chance for Salvation.

It does nothing of the sort. Every time you insert chance in regard to salvation you are twisting Scripture.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
These verses tell us how we can be saved.

But they have nothing to do with the subject-at-hand.
___________________________________________________________
Now how about answering my post #328? It's filled with Scripture that I want you to deal with.