Does God love everyone?

[webdog]

Well, GOD'S word says that Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Three different times, that seems like a established witness that he does hate. That is what GOD has to say about the matter.

...yet we know from Scripture that hate does not mean the opposite of love, else John 3:16 would be a lie.

That verse is about nations, btw...

 

[webdog]

Well, GOD'S word says that Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Three different times, that seems like a established witness that he does hate. That is what GOD has to say about the matter.

...yet we know from Scripture that hate does not mean the opposite of love, else John 3:16 would be a lie.

That verse is about nations, btw...

 

[webdog]

Well, GOD'S word says that Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Three different times, that seems like a established witness that he does hate. That is what GOD has to say about the matter.

...yet we know from Scripture that hate does not mean the opposite of love, else John 3:16 would be a lie.

That verse is about nations, btw...

 

[Rippon]

...yet we know from Scripture that hate does not mean the opposite of love, else John 3:16 would be a lie.

That verse is about nations, btw...

Something so nice you had to say it thrice?

Hate is the opposite of love.Did God just love Esau less than Jacob in your view?

Edited in :Wow! You made the same post 5 times (so far?).

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture From TNIV

Did God hate them before they were born or after they choose to continue in sin and wickedness?

Yes,He hated them before they were born.Before the famous (or infamous depending upon your appreciation of the Word of God) Romans 9:13,here is what verse 11 says :"Yet,before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad -- in order for God's purpose in election might stand"

If you're tempted to say "Yeah,but..." -- watch it -- the Bible declares this.

 

[Allan]

Something so nice you had to say it thrice?

Hate is the opposite of love.Did God just love Esau less than Jacob in your view?

Edited in :Wow! You made the same post 5 times (so far?).

Scripture tells that if we are to follow Christ and do not hate our father, mother, our wife, ect...
And yet at the same time we see scripture also commanding us to love them.

So is hate always the opposite of love or can it also be the establishing of who is placed in priority thus making it the same as to love-less than?

The fact is that He loved them both though His love for Jacob was over that of Esau.

 

[Allan]

Yes,He hated them before they were born.Before the famous (or infamous depending upon your appreciation of the Word of God) Romans 9:13,here is what verse 11 says :"Yet,before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad -- in order for God's purpose in election might stand"

If you're tempted to say "Yeah,but..." -- watch it -- the Bible declares this.

Of course the bible declares it ! Just not your version of what it means.

The fact is this brother, They (themselves and the nations they constituted) were chosen not in relation to their works (good or bad) which they had done but according to His purpose, not specifically to salvation but primarily to the bringing about of Israel, His word, and finally His Son Christ Jesus the Lord.

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture From TNIV

Scripture tells that we are to hate father, mother, our wife, ect...
But at the same time scripture also tells us to love them..

You really need to focus on context.In Luke 14:26 the hatred is figurative.In contrast to the love one should have for their earthy parents one's love for God should be immeasurably higher.

Look at Matthew 10:37:Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

There is no question that the Scripture enjoins us to love our parents.Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

So is hate the opposite of love or is it actaully establishing who is placed in priority thus making it the same as to love-less than?

Hate is the opposite of love.If you want to be an armchair psychologist or philosopher that's one thing -- but don't tamper with God's Word with such secular reasoning.

In your view God loved Jacob more than Esau and that's complete tommyrot.

The fact is that He loved them both though His love for Jacob was over that of Esau.

What did I just get through telling you? LOL!

 

[Allan]

You really need to focus on context.In Luke 14:26 the hatred is figurative.In contrast to the love one should have for their earthy parents one's love for God should be immeasurably higher.

Look at Matthew 10:37:Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

There is no question that the Scripture enjoins us to love our parents.Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Never said it did You just proved my point about love not always being the opposite of hate.

In your view God loved Jacob more than Esau and that's complete tommyrot.

You mean scriptures view, but I understand what you are saying though I biblically disagree with it - That 'figuritive love' you spoke of is just the same regarding Jacob and Esau and is established in the fact in that niether did anything good or evil for God to hate or despise either of them.

If God did hate before either did anything (good or evil) then you have God choosing one to salvation and the other to damnation before sin ever enters the scene.
Which is a sharp deviation from Reformed or Calvinistic thought.


Tell me Rippon, do you still disagree with the Historical position of the Reformed view who held that God does love the non-elect though not in the same manner as the Elect?

OR

Do you still contend that God has never had any love or type of love for the unelect but only hatred?

 

[Rippon]

If God did hate before either did anything (good or evil) then you have God choosing one to salvation and the other to damnation before sin ever enters the scene.
Which is a sharp deviation from Reformed or Calvinistic thought

God foreordains the destiny of all His creatures whether to the glories of Heaven or the misery of everlasting separation from God.That's not a deviation from Classical Calvinism -- especially from John Calvin.

 

[Rippon]

All Scripture From TNIV

In your view God loved Jacob more than Esau -- and that's complete tommyrot.

You mean scriptures view, but I understand what you are saying though I biblically disagree with it - That 'figuritive love' you spoke of is just the same regarding Jacob and Esau and is established in the fact in that niether did anything good or evil for God to hate or despise either of them.

Having God merely loving Jacob more than Esau is not Scripture -- it's purely Allan's pyscho-babbling.There is nothing figurative about Romans 9:13.But Luke 14:26 certainly is.If you dispute that -- you need to complain to God. We know that you will be told :"Who are you,a mere human being,to talk back to God?"(Romans 9:20)

And again :..."before the twins were born or did anything good or bad..." Submit to the authority of God's Word.Don't presume to be its judge.

 

[Allan]

Having God merely loving Jacob more than Esau is not Scripture -- it's purely Allan's pyscho-babbling.There is nothing figurative about Romans 9:13.But Luke 14:26 certainly is.If you dispute that -- you need to complain to God. We know that you will be told :"Who are you,a mere human being,to talk back to God?"(Romans 9:20)

Of course.. The entire context is refering to God choosing to use whomever He desires to fulfill His purpose which is specifically bringing forth a people, to bring forth His Word as well as Christ JEsus the Lord.

We are all the same so whoever God chooses is not based upon who is better or more deserving but upon His good pleasure. This however is not about salvation nor is this thread about "Does God love everyone".

And again :..."before the twins were born or did anything good or bad..." Submit to the authority of God's Word.Don't presume to be its judge.

Yes, and that pretty much is the same thing the Jews said to the disciples/apostles.

It is that very verse that proves my point that Rom 9 is not about being chosen to salvation (unless you would have determining man to be in hell before sin came) but it is about being chosen to His purpose (regarding the nation of Israel).

He chose whom He would not based on the works of who was better or more suited but upon His own soveriegn counsil since both were in the same state.


Anyway.. again this is not about salvation but does God or does God not love everyone?

In this (unless you have changed your view) you beliefs have become contrary to the Historical and present day Reformed/Calvinistic beliefs. Even in the Westminister Standard speaks of the 'offer' of salvation being to the non-elect and the elect alike. But why?
What about what the Westminister Standard: <-- Article written via Presbytarians (the below is an excert from it)

6. The Westminster Standards

The term "offer" or "free offer" is used in the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith VII/III; Larger Catechism Ans. 32, 63, 68; Shorter Catechism Ans. 31 and 86).

The Larger Catechism puts it beyond doubt that the term is used in reference to non-elect persons; "...who, for their wilful neglect and contempt of grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ" (Larger Catechism Ans. 68).

Attempts have been made of late to rob the term "free offer" of much of its real meaning, as if it meant no more that "present" or "exhibit" (see H. Hanko, Protestant Reformed Journal Nov. 1986, pp. 16f).

The intended meaning is far more than this. Anyone wishing to catch the true meaning of these terms and the general outlook of the Puritan period should read the "Sum of Saving Knowledge" drawn up by David Dickson and James Durham and often printed along with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, no doubt due to its claim to be "A Brief Sum of Christian Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, and holden forth in the foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms".

The section on "Warrants to Believe" and its handling of Isaiah 55/1-5 and 2 Cor. 5/19-21 are especially noteworthy and the many references to God's promises, offers of grace, sweet invitations, loving requests etc

or how about J. I. Packer's view that "God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear may believe and be saved. This is love in active expression. "

(Celebrating the Saving Work of God, p. 151)

God's love is revealed in the universal invitations of the gospel, whereby sinful humans are invited to turn in faith and repentance to the living Christ who died for sins and are promised pardon and life if they do. 'God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.' 'God is love (agape). This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.' And God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear may believe and be saved. This is love in active expression.

or what about the Presbitarian Minister John Howe (16 and 17th century)
"The Goodness of God", Part II preached in 1691:

15. Lastly, The terms upon which he offers peace and pardon and eternal life to offending creatures, are the highest proofs and evidences imaginable of the wonderful goodness of God, notwithstanding that so great multitudes do, finally, refuse them and perish. And to this purpose, it should be considered, that the apostle speaks of this as matter of transport more than doubt, and that it did need more to be admired than evinced. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John 3:16. The silence that is there used is more speaking than any speech could be. He so loved the world, at so stupendous a rate. It is a very speaking silence that he doth not tell us how great that love is; he leaves us to understand it to be altogether inexpressible, that he should give his only Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish — and whereas, men have an impotency to the exercise of that faith that is requisite to their attaining salvation, what is that impotency? It stands only in an affected blindness and obduracy of will; that which they call moral impotency. Now moral doth not excuse, but aggravate the faultiness. No man takes moral impotency to be an excuse, but a high aggravation. As if a man is guilty of murder, and he brings this to excuse him, — "I could not but kill that man because I hated him, I did so violently hate him that I could not but do this unto him." That moral impotency (his extreme hatred) aggravates the crime, that that made it to be done, made it so highly faulty, and so much the more heinous, that it is done. He is not less guilty, but the more, by how much the more his hatred was predominant and prevalent in the case. Why, so this disaffection to God and to Christ and to holiness (which is impotency), is an impotency seated in the will, and the ignorance hath its root, it ariseth and proceeds from thence, that is, that men are "alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, and because of the blindness of their hearts." A blindness which they love, a blindness which they choose, as it is, Eph. 4:18. Whereupon, all their misery is self-created. The miseries wherein men are involved in this world, which make it another hell to them (a hell on this side hell), and the miseries of the final and eternal state, they are all self-created; that is, they do arise from a fixed, inveterate malignity against the Author of their being, and that very nature itself, whereof their own, at first, was an imitation. An amazing thing, but it were impossible, if men did love God, to be miserable. Loving him is enjoying him, and enjoying him is felicity, if any thing be, or can be. The image of men's future miseries you have in their present state. What is it that makes the world such a hell as it is, but men's hatred of God and of one another? For (as was said) if there were no contention at all among men on earth, but who should love God best, and one another best, and who should do most for him, and for one another, what a heavenly life should we live here, a heaven on this side heaven: but the hell on this side hell, is only this, that men's hearts are filled with enmity against God, and one another; and from this malignity proceeds their infidelity, that they do not unite to God in Christ when they are called to it; which is no excuse, but an aggravation. But, in the mean time, that is the most wonderful goodness that can be thought, that such overtures should be made to men, God having given his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It is apparent they all agree that God (to some extent) loves the non-elect.

 

[Allan]

God foreordains the destiny of all His creatures whether to the glories of Heaven or the misery of everlasting separation from God.That's not a deviation from Classical Calvinism -- especially from John Calvin.

Then you agree with the statement that God choose one to salvation and the other to damnation before sin ever enters the scene.

If that IS your contention then you stand outside Reformed concept of preordaining/predetermining and thus would stand squarely in that catagory regarding Hyper beliefs. - And - No - I'm not calling you a hyper-anything unless of course you hold to said contention.

 

[ktn4eg]

First, I never asked you to answer my post - I was responding to your question about love and Judas. Are you saying that Judas is not apart of the world?

Did not Jesus love his disciples (which included Judas)? - Yes
Did Jesus hate Judas? - No, not as far as scripture declares but loved him

Did Jesus not include Judas in everything He revealed to the disciples, and also in the sending of them to cast out demons, heal the sick, and preach the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand? - Yes, and to assume Judas did not do these things Christ commanded them is to bring something to the text it does not state in any fashion.

Jesus did for Judas all that He would do for everyman, but they still must choose life or death, submission or rebellion. Yes Judas was the son of perdition not because he had no choice in the matter and then be damned but because it was his choice and God used him in a way that would absolutely bring his plan to be.

Friend Allen [To me, a "friend" means a little more than merely a "brother"!],

"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins....Even when we were dead in sins..." -- Ephesians 2:1 & 2:5a [bolding mine]

Now, I'm not certain how you would define the word "dead," but in my rather simple way of looking at things, I tend to believe that when an individual is dead, that individual (in and of himself) possesses no inherent capability of doing anything, be it in either the physical or the spiritual realm.

In the past, I worked at a funeral home. In my limited experience therein, not once did I see any individual who was lying in the casket decide to turn over, or complain about the music at the funeral. Never even saw him sneeze. Why not? Well, for one thing, he's dead.

I could be wrong (hasn't been the first time!), but somehow I sense that that you believe that you believe that a spiritually dead person, of and by himself, possesses the capability of "choosing" to whether or not he ought to repent of his sins and trust Jesus Christ as his own personal Savior.

If this is a correct observation on my part (and, again, I could very much be wrong--and will publicly admit such, apologize to you, and ask for your forgiveness here on BB), would you kindly explain by showing me from the Word of God the scriptures that clearly demonstrate how such a spiritually dead person not only possesses the full capacity to but also has in fact, in and of himself, of chosen to repent of his sins and to trust Christ as his Savior?

For me, I tend to believe that God, and Him alone, took the initiative in my salvation before the foundation of the world took place.

If you would like, I will gladly supply from the Word of God the scriptures that clearly demonstrate why it is that I believe this.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now, on to the subject of "the world" as it appears in John 3:16.

In order to understand to what that verse (or, for that matter, any other verse in the Bible) is referring when it uses the term "world," one needs to define what the term "world" means in this instance.

Does it mean "everyone without exception from Adam on down to the very last individual human being who possesses physical life in this universe," or does it mean something different than that?

This may come as a surprise to you, but in reality, my understanding of your understanding of what "world" means in John 3:16 isn't that much different from what I think may be yours.

As I interpret your (and several other posters on this thread) definition of "world" as it's used in John 3:16, you would say it's talking about "people."

My understanding of the word "world" in John 3:16 refers to "this world's system."

Of course "this world's system" must of necessity manifest itself by ---- "people." But, if you'll examine the expression carefully, you'll find that the emphasis in that part of John 3:16 isn't so much on individual people as such, but rather on the "system."

Now, I could go on in elaborate detail, but I do hope that you see that there is a subtle shade of difference in my understanding "world" as it appears in the first part of John 3:16.

I hope that this helps you.

Blessings to you and yours.

 

[ray Marshall]

...yet we know from Scripture that hate does not mean the opposite of love, else John 3:16 would be a lie.

That verse is about nations, btw...

there are different worlds in the Bible, but GOD so LOVED the WORLD OF HIS ELECT!
You Can't get by "Election." There is so much taught about GOD'S elect.

 

[ray Marshall]

...yet we know from Scripture that hate does not mean the opposite of love, else John 3:16 would be a lie.

That verse is about nations, btw...

Then it is to assume that GOD did not hate Jacob as much as he did Esau.

 

[hawg_427]

God Loves all of us.

I was watching a TV Preacher James Merritt this Sunday on Dish Network and it was the sort of sermon that will bring tears to your eyes. God LOVES us all with a love that can can never come close to. Imagine how much you love your child for example, God loves all of us so much more than that. He sent his only Son down here to die for all sins. God LOVES ALL of us sinners, God hates all sin.
You can't get more simple than that.

 

[Amy.G]

there are different worlds in the Bible, but GOD so LOVED the WORLD OF HIS ELECT!
You Can't get by "Election." There is so much taught about GOD'S elect.

That is not what scripture says. You are adding to the word of God.


Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.


It says that God loved the world, but only those who believe will have eternal life. Simple.

 

[Marcia]

I agree with you Marcia but one question for clarificaiton purposes:

Did God hate them before they were born or after they choose to continue in sin and wickedness?

IOW - when did God choose to give them over to their wickedness?

I never answered the OP directly; I merely posted those scriptures as a thought-provoking act. I have always said that God loves everyone so wondered how to reconcile that with those scriptures I posted (which I was aware of but sort of ignored in the whole "God loves everyone" idea).

You make a great point that helps a lot. I think you are right - these are those given over to their wickedness, as shown in Rom. 1 (and other passages).

Thanks, Allan!

 

[Tom Butler]

God reveals truth to all men everywhere, if they will believe those truths (no matter how small we think they are or great even) He will send the gospel to those where no gospel is. The Etheopian in Acts for example.

Secondly who said "millions and millions" were shut out. I read continuously where the gentiles sought out Jesus even though He was primarily here for them. He still ministered to them - and it was only to them that Jesus ever made the statements of 'great faith'. Those who did not recieve the telling of the gospel had already in their own hearts rejected the truths which God reveals of Himself to each and everyman through various means but always the truth they know comes directly from Himself.

However, not everyone whom God sends the gospel to gets saved either, so your #1 is not a true answer to the question.

The only real answer is that the gospel is the 'full or complete message' of God's saving grace given to all for the salvation of those whom God knows will believe and the assurence of damnation for those who reject His great Love. He is the light which spiritually reveals truth to all men everywhere - thus all men are commanded to repent in acknowledgment of their sins against God (which are revealed by God to them through various means - nature, conscience, men's laws, and His own word) whom they know will punish by death all those who do such things. Rom 1:18-32

Allan, I think we've been through this before but I just want to be sure I remember correctly. It seems to be your position that every human being has heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. That there is now no one living who will die without hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. That seems to be the view in this post, and in earlier ones in other threads. Do I have it right? If so, can you explain how this can be so? Or do you accept this as a matter of faith?

Or do you draw this conclusion because of "God so loved the world..." and must have necessarily given the gospel to everyone in the world?