Esau I HATED!!!!!

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
I am amazed at how people on this thread keep taking a word and turning it to mean what they want it to. Bob continues to push the "love less" angle and that Romans 9 is a reference to nations. The problem here is that all the people who believe that are caught in their own trap. So for the sake of argument let's agree that Bob is correct when he says God does not hate, and that Romans 9 is speaking about nations and not individuals.

#1. So you mean to "ADMIT" the exegetical FACT that Romans 9 is aquote of Malach 1 is "a favor to Bob"??

#2. So to ADMIT the exegetical fact that Malachi 1 is speaking of the NATIONS of Edom and Israel centuries AFTER Jacob and Esau died is "a favor to Bob"??

#3. To admit that scripture says God weeps for the lost is "a favor to Bob"?

#4. To admit that Scripture says "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" is a "favor to Bob"??

Good thing "Bob is here" so the Bible can be read!

Timothy27
The first problem is that there is an assumption that God does not hate

No - there is the assumption that "The Bible is true" so God "Really does weep" over the lost and God really does want ALL to come to repentance like the Bible says -- and God really IS "impartial" as the CONTEXT for Romans 9 says (in Romans 2)

Exegesis - aint it great?!!

Timothy 27
, and this assumption is based on human emotion

The rabbit trail you created did not go very far.

Why not actually LOOK at the opposing argument and refute it - rather than simply "making stuff up"??

T27 said

Second, even if Romans 9 is talking about nations you still have to deal with the fact that one nation was chosen by God and the other was not

"Again" -- Calvinists have been so "Faithful in ignoring the details of scripture" on this point that I would think that at "Some point" there HAS TO BE ONE of you out there that is getting embarrassed!!

Malach 1 is NOT about two nations STARTING OFF and God PICKING ONE over the other!!

Get it? Yet?

Malachi 1 is written long AFTER BOTH Nations have been around FOR CENTURIES.

(Did you not even READ the Malachi 1 posts? The Romans 9 posts??)

How many ways can the Calvinists here admit that "They don't read" and that they are ignoring DETAILS --??

How OFTEN can they do that and still have pride in their model of salvation that demands such fact-challenged tactics??

This is just amazing!

, and what are nations made up of? INDIVIDUALS.

Yes - and in this case INDIVIDUALS that have made the choices (over centuries) to rebel against God -- and are reaping the judgments that God said would fall EVEN UPON ISRAEL should THEY choose the same course.

Edom is a nation WITHOUT Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Joshua, Moses, Josiah, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah, Elisha...

So for ALL the wickedness of BOTH Edom and Israel - ISRAEL had strong righteous leadership that CALLED the nation to repentance!

Of Moses and Joshua it is written that Israel served God in their life times AND in the lifetimes of the elders that followed Joshua!!

As Moses pointed out in the BLESSING and the CURSES that would have a "result".

As God points out in Romans 2 - that history of obedience and servanthood would have a result.

AS Romans 2:11-13 says "God is NOT PARTIAL" as it describes BOTH the saved AND the lost.

T27
The text does not say God loved the nation that would come from Jacob, and hated the nation that would come from Esau.

Indeed since NO NATION WOULD come from the Dead Esau at the time of Malachi 1 and NO nation would COME FROM the dead Jacob at the time this was spoken - in Malachi 1!!

Get it? Yet?

It names particular people. Individuals. It also states that this was done "in order that God's election may stand."

I see so it names Jacob and Esau to Rebecca letting her know that God hates her baby "So that God's election may stand"!!

Wrong AGAIN!!

The text of Romans 9 tells us that God says to Rebecca "The older shall serve the younger" and that this statement about NON-NAMED infants and LEADERSHI roles (NOT hate and love)

Rom 2
so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

You guys are so busy ignoring the text and all the details you can not even bring yourself to quote more than a tiny snip - and so get lost EVERY TIME!

How can you be so fact-adverse!!


It may sound harsh and I can understand how that sounds mean, but it is not,


Please just learn to embrace facts EVEN when they don't serve Calvinism - and you will be able to read THE WHOLE CHAPTER!!

T27
I do not understand how you can reconcile in your mind that it is not okay to choose one INDIVIDUAL over another, but it is okay to choose a whole nation of INDIVIDUALS over another. Answer this question... Did the nation of Edom go to heaven?

I just can't believe what I am reading!!

#1. NO NATION Goes to heaven!

#2. The DETAILS do NOT show God Picking a NATION for heaven.

#3. The DETAILS do not show God DOOMING Edom PRIOR to their being a nation or making CENTURIES of choices for evil!

#4. The DETAILS show God telling Israel that THEY TOO will be cursed LIKE the nations around them IF THEY TOO choose evil!

Your arguments do not stand as they are, and to all those that believe that way are deceived by their own arguments.

But worse than this - how in the world are you guys happy to present the case you are making for Calvinism in such a fact-challenged way??

I could never endure such tactics employed on behalf of Arminianism!

Somebody out there has GOT to be cringing!

I just can't believe this is all "business as usual" for ALL the Calvinists!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by johnp.:
You run counter to scripture...

Not at all. Jesus' parable of the talents evidences that God will bless those who use their gifts more than those who don't.

Why come down on the KJV?

I don't. I do, however, come down on those who elevate translations over source texts. That's what KJVOists do, and they have made a cult out of it.

That God loves some and hates others is scripture. What of the angels that He turned His back on?

GOd turning His back does not equate to not loving. I've had to turn my back on my children fromtiem to time in order to get them to learn a lesson. It's extremely diffucult for parents to do this. If anyone ever accused me of not loving my kids, they'd get a punch in the nose.

What the word carries or does not carry I am not authorised to change the meaning of because you said so.

Sane does not carry a context of withholding love. When you say that God did not love Esau, you change the meaning of scripture.

As far as I'm concerned if God cannot handle the word aright then we are all in the pappekak are we not?

God isn't in the translation business. No translation is perfect. Good, yes. Perfect, no.

White Dutch-Indonesian? We have just spent two weeks among your compatriots in the South of France. We have a lot in common and we can drink as much as each other without falling over.

I'm lighter than average, but darker than the Dutch. Haven't been there since I was a kid. Hoping to go back, though.

... there is common sense among the unlearned and we need nothing but God's provision of His word in our own language. It's called trust. You are asking me to trust you.

You're presuming that God infused divine providence into translations over their source texts. I think this is somewhat extrascriptural, but that is a topic for a whole other thread. Translations never, never, supercede their source texts. That is because no two languages are perfect mirrors of each other, and because of the nature of etymological evolution, a perfect translation is impossible. There is no such thing as a perfect English translations. Believe me, I have studied them all. Many on this board have studied multiple translations and the source texts, and will tell you the same thing. The source texts always supercede the translation in form, content, and context. In this case, the Hebrew simply does not contain any context of God withholding love when the word "sane" is used.

Well if you can make hate mean love then love becomes meaningless.

I never said hate means love. I said sane does not mean the withholding of love.

ISA 5:20

This verse has nothing to do with the definition of sane.

Some love.

If you don't like the fact that God loves all, take it up with God. I for one don't have a problem with it.

I thought you weren't in it for election.

The issue of God loving all has nothing to do with God saving all.

Rev 19:15

This verse does not say that God refrained from loving Esau. Nor does it say that God loves only some people. It does, however, discuss wrath. Wrath (anger) is not dispensed on the unloved as opposed to the loved. I have had wrath towards my children. I loved them still. Likewise, the Heavenly Father is capable of having wrath towards those he loves.

Jacob I loved Esau I hated is plain and simple.

And no where in that verse does it say God refrained from loving Esau when He hated him.

 

[timothy27]

I believe God loves the world. Why? Because He said it. Any other view besides that is "warped".

I am sure you do, but loves it enough to save it? No, He may love it but He "loves it less" than His plans for it.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by timothy27:
Who has ever claimed this?

It is what is at the heart of this thread. If you do not believe God chooses people for His purposes, and that He brings one to Him you have to believe man is capable of doing it himself.

Accepting a gift is in no way "doing it yourself". Your view makes God "wishing that none peristh" a monsterous statement and a lie.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by timothy27:
I believe God loves the world. Why? Because He said it. Any other view besides that is "warped".

I am sure you do, but loves it enough to save it? No, He may love it but He "loves it less" than His plans for it.

So you deny the very words written in the Bible! Wishing that NONE perish shows what, hate?

 

[johnp.]

Your view makes God "wishing that none peristh" a monsterous statement and a lie.

The lie is that love fails.

john.

 

[BobRyan]

Scott said
Jacob during his own life was promised the blessing of becoming a great nation. He possibly even knew when he blessed his own sons that the blessing he gave to Judah was messianic.

God blessed Jacob by making him the line of promise. We do not see scripture saying the God of Abraham, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob, do we? No. He was the God of Jacob the chosen patriarch.

This has to do with LEADERSHIP and minstry roles NOT Salvation and LOVE.

To argue that the ONLY ones loved are those for whom Christ is a direct descendant is to argue that Joseph was not loved! It is to argue that Levi was not loved! It is to argue that Samuel was not loved! It is to argue that Joshua was not loved! It is to argue that Moses was not Loved!

Gen 47:9
9So Jacob said to Pharaoh, "The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning."

This is the "Summation" Jacob gives. Jacob the one who inherits NOTHING from either Abraham or Isaac.

Jacob who is driven from his home, chased by his father-in-law and hunted by his brother and left wandering in Caanan until rescued by Egypt!

As the Jews said in Fiddler on the Roof "God please let someone ELSE be special for a while".

It will be interesting to see how many different ways there are to ignore these Bible facts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[timothy27]

Bob what do you think "before they were born means?" It has nothing to do with their choices? I cannot believe you are skipping over the fact that it says that. Do you believe that since Esau was dead in Malachi that the nation of Edom did not descend from him. You make no sense! If Romans 9 is about nations than from whom did the nations descend? If the Edomites are not from Esau than why did it not name the actual person from whom they did descend in Romans 9?

So by your logic if you were a slave and you had great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren who were still slaves, technically they would not have descended from you since you were not alive at the time. And technically they should eventually stop being slaves, yet they do not because this is what God planned for them.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
I believe God loves the world. Why? Because He said it. Any other view besides that is "warped".

I am sure you do, but loves it enough to save it? No, He may love it but He "loves it less" than His plans for it.

So in that future Calvinist scenario - when the CAlvinist parents SEES his precious daughter roasting in the flames of hell and he rushes to His Lord and Master and says "My God couldn't you have done SOMETHING for my precious child!!?" He will hear what Calvinist find to be music to their ears "Why of course I CARED for and LOVED your precious daughter - but more than I CARED for MY PLANS to torment her in the flames!"

For as Johnathan Edwards admits about Rev 14:10 WE SHALL SEE the wicked roasting in the flames as God declares they are "Tormented IN THE PRESENCE of the LAMB AND of His Holy ones"!!

So I suppose in context of this thread Calvinists EXPECT God to reply "You have I loved - your daughter have I HATED" INSTEAD of "Weeping over the lost" Like the Bible says!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In 1Cor 2:16 – we are told that we have been given “the Mind of Christ”. What then is the Mind of Christ regarding love for the lost?

When the “impartial (Rom 2:11) unchanging (Mal 3:6) God” weeps and grieves over the lost - He is not simply pretending so we will be duped into "thinking" He loves them and works for their salvation just as He loves the saved and ministers to them, when in fact He cares nothing at all for our children and loved ones that are “not elect”.

God’s Grieving involves tears as a parent weeps for a lost child!!

Luke 19:
41When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,
42saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.
43“For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

Lament over Jerusalem

Matt 23

37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

God is sorrowful and GRIEVES for the lost and for the fact that He has done so much to win them - yet they TURN away.

Gen 6:
5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

God’s Spirit is grieved by the rebellion of His CHOSEN people His HOLY nation His ROYAL priesthood. Yes even by the LOST among them – even the worst among them.

Isaiah 63:So He became their Savior.
9 In all their affliction He was afflicted,
And the angel of His presence saved them;
In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them,
And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled
And grieved His Holy Spirit;
Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
He fought against them.

ALL of God’s Compassion is stirred up within Him over the finally lost!

Hosea 11:7 So My people are bent on turning from Me.
Though they call them to the One on high,
None at all exalts Him.
8 How can I give you up, O Ephraim?
How can I surrender you, O Israel?
How can I make you like Admah?
How can I treat you like Zeboiim?
My heart is turned over within Me,
All My compassions are kindled.

Ezek 18:20“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
21“But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22“All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live.
23“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?
24“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
26“When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
27“Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.
28“Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
29“But the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
31“Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
32“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and LIVE!"

God will be displeased with the saints IF they rejoice at the fall/judgment of the wicked!

Prov 24:17Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,
And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles;
18Or the LORD will see it and be displeased,

 

[timothy27]

So Bob are you saying that the book of Romans has nothing to do about salvation? It is about who is called to be leaders? That seems funny considering the flow of the book, and how it explains the process of salvation.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by johnp.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your view makes God "wishing that none peristh" a monsterous statement and a lie.

The lie is that love fails.

john. </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't, and allowing someone you love to pay for their sin instead of accepting Christ's payment doesn't change that.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
Bob what do you think "before they were born means?" It has nothing to do with their choices?

This is really something!

Did you even read the section on Romans 9 that I posted?

Please actually read Romans 9 for at least 3 or 4 verses and maybe one or two of my posts so we can make some headway instead of having me repeat the same things over again.

AS already stated - the part where God SELECTS MINISTRY and LEADERSHIP was done in the context of TWO INFANTS and a conversation where God IS speaking to Rebecca.

I have no problem at all with roles and ministry.

See? This is a really really easy point.

Now come on you guys - you are just not trying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Tim27
Do you believe that since Esau was dead in Malachi that the nation of Edom did not descend from him.

No. He was their ancestor.

Are you arguing for "death by ancestor"??

Are you arguing that God wants us to IGNORE THE BIBLE and all the details/context of Malachi 1??

Are you continuing to argue for Eisegesis as the only way Calvinism can make a case here?

I just find this so amazing!

Tim27 If Romans 9 is about nations than from whom did the nations descend?

Did you read the comments I posted on the first half of Romans 9 right up to the point that the two infants are mentioned. The part where I SHOW that NATIONS are mentioned even PRIOR to that verse -- and yet IN Romans 9??

Are you seeing the details?

Tim 27

So by your logic if you were a slave and you had great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren who were still slaves, technically they would not have descended from you since you were not alive at the time.

Honestly - I can not believe I am reading this!

Why are the points of the argument so hard for the Calvinists to get?

I have no problem with debating my view - but you seem to be struggling to get the basic points of the argument.

Have I said it wrong??

Someone please show me some OTHER way to state this Arminian point so that our Calvinists brethren can debate what is being said!

Tim 27 --
And technically they should eventually stop being slaves, yet they do not because this is what God planned for them.

I love that quote!!

It is the perfect Calvinist miscontruel of two texts twisted and wound up into a finely honed fact-void story. By ignoring almost every detail in scripture you have arrived at a statement IMPOSSIBLE to support in EITHER the OT or the NEW!

That quote is going into my Romans 9 comment section.

It is absolutely PERFECT!! (Truely worthy even of JohnP himself!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by timothy27:
So Bob are you saying that the book of Romans has nothing to do about salvation?

Nope. I am saying THE DETAILs in Romans 9 as already pointed out show LEADERSHIP selection at the time of the INFANTS and nothing more. And that LEADERSHIP selection is to make the point of God's choice without any consideration of individual actions when it comes to LEADERHIP and MINISTRY roles.

But when it comes to SALVATION (as Romans 2:11 points out) God is impartial.

This is such a cross for Calvinists to bear - I know -- but the Bible turns out to be true.

Romans 2 is about Salvation.

Romans 9 deals with salvation as well but it reverts to a point about God's choice and LEADERSHIP when it says "The older will serve the younger".

This is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore!

And that too - is somewhat of a cross for Calvinists to bear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[timothy27]

Yes I have read the entire book of Romans numerous times.

So does the text apply to the individuals Jacob and Esau or simply to the nations springing from them? It must be observed as Bob says in Malachi 1:1-5 the people of Israel and Edom are distinctly in view. The prophecy is introduced as "the burden of the word of the Lord to Israel"(v.1) and verses 3-5 clearly refer to the Edomites, to the desolation of their country, and as the people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever. This collective or ethnic preference is parallel to what we find in connection with the preceding oracle spoken to Rebecca. Therefore there is no doubt that this word as originally spoken had application to the nations of Israel and Edom.

It must not be assumed, however, from this fact that the question of its relevance to the individuals Jacob and Esau is determined and determined for the most part negatively. Certain things must be kept in mind

a)Althought the respective peoples proceeding from Jacob and Esau are in the forefront in Malachi, we cannot discount the relevance to Jacob and Esau themselves. Why was there this differentiation between Israel and Edom? It was because there was differentiation between Jacob and Esau. It would be indefensible to dissociate the fortunes of the respective peoples from the differentiation in the individuals as it would be to dissociate the differentiation of the individuals from the destinies of the nations proceeding them. So the question cannot be dismissed ... What is the character of the differentiation as it affects the individuals Jacob and Esau?

 

[timothy27]

Romans 9 does not deal with leadership!! It deals with who the promise shall come thru, and what is the promise? Salvation thru Christ!!

 

[timothy27]

As seen in verse 11 the differentiationwhich belongs to Israel as a whole in virtue of the theocratic election does not meet the question the apostle encounters in this whole passage, primarily, the unbelief of the mass of ethnic Israel. There must be another factor that the word of God has come to fruition. This is found in the particularity of election, that is, in a more specific and determinitve election than is exemplified in the generic election of Israel as a people. So now in terms of "love" the only criterion that will meet the demands of the situation is a more specific love than that shown in the love that distiguished Israel as a people from Edom as a people. The conclusion then, must be that in respect of the persons of Jacob and Esau Paul pushes his analysis and application of love and hate to their ultimate in order to discover the kind of differentiation that will satisfy the demands of the problem with which he is dealing.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Johnv.

And no where in that verse does it say God refrained from loving Esau when He hated him.

Yes I can't no I can sums that balderdash up. I do of course know the proper English to describe it but I have been told in the past not to use that type of language!

I don't. I do, however, come down on those who elevate translations over source texts. That's what KJVOists do, and they have made a cult out of it.

And why tell me this as I use the NIV? I do not elevate translations over source but I do not change a thing on your word. You have admitted that God hated Esau in the quote above yet you say He did not stop loving him? Now you will say that the 'hate' you speak of is not the English hate won't you? What you really mean is that God never stopped loving Esau even when He loved Him less which, when love is weighed, the sentence reads 'He never stopped loving Esau even when He was loving him'. Yet what is written is written and hate means hate not love. Your view of God is double minded at best and I hope I'm never at the mercy of your love. I used to speak Double Dutch but I grew out of it.

GOd turning His back does not equate to not loving.

I see so the good Samaritan loved more then did he?
What beats me is that you went to college to learn this! HaHa!

I've had to turn my back on my children from time to time in order to get them to learn a lesson.

Funny you should mention that as I am in the act of turning my back on my youngest daughter at the moment but it hurts as I love my daughter because she is my daughter. Esau was never a child of God.

It's extremely diffucult for parents to do this.

It is but in the end I know that if she does not turn around and love me, and in this I will have a long wait, she is still my daughter and there is no chance that I will set her ablaze and torture her forever now is there. Your analogy is useless.

If anyone ever accused me of not loving my kids, they'd get a punch in the nose.

In love of course or your love has failed. So when's the bonefire in love going to be then?

Sane does not carry a context of withholding love.

Yea you keep saying that.

When you say that God did not love Esau, you change the meaning of scripture.

Not me the translators if anyone. I'll go with them for now if you don't mind your argument is like your impression of love, it fails the test.

God isn't in the translation business. No translation is perfect. Good, yes. Perfect, no.

Great stuff then it's up to us to believe as we will. This is the reason I treat you different.

I'm lighter than average, but darker than the Dutch. Haven't been there since I was a kid. Hoping to go back, though.

Interesting place: occasional floods, severe droughts, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, forest fires and terror.
Childhood memories are very appealing I hope you make it. No sarcasm intended. I'd stay in Southern California if I was ever there I think.

You're presuming that God infused divine providence into translations over their source texts.

I presume nothing but God is Sovereign. I read what He wants and I believe what He wants and I say what He wants and so do you. If He wants me to believe what you say then I will otherwise I won't. All things are by Him and for Him.

I think this is somewhat extrascriptural, but that is a topic for a whole other thread. Translations never, never, supercede their source texts.

I never said they did and I do not see that it is off topic.

That is because no two languages are perfect mirrors of each other, and because of the nature of etymological evolution, a perfect translation is impossible.

Then the voice of Jesus is different in different places. In some places hate is love but where I live we know what it means.

There is no such thing as a perfect English translations.

As far as you are concerned they are all wrong. Are the Dutch, German and Italian bibles all wrong?

I never said hate means love. I said sane does not mean the withholding of love.

MAL 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, `How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." No but this is no turning His back but open emnity towards a race that was of special interest to Him. An object lesson set up for us to see clearly that God is a Despot.

Isaiah 5:20. This verse has nothing to do with the definition of sane.

It has when you say hate is love.

If you don't like the fact that God loves all, take it up with God. I for one don't have a problem with it.

Why should I take God to task for not loving those that He sends to Hell? I would be very disturb if those He sent to Hell He loved where does that leave me? Without comfort and without a hope? How could I go after my dream if my dream had such a fault in it? Perfect love drives out fear but what is love if it allows harm come to the object of it's love? It's not love.

The issue of God loving all has nothing to do with God saving all.

Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.

This verse does not say that God refrained from loving Esau. Nor does it say that God loves only some people. It does, however, discuss wrath. Wrath (anger) is not dispensed on the unloved as opposed to the loved. I have had wrath towards my children. I loved them still. Likewise, the Heavenly Father is capable of having wrath towards those he loves.

You equate yourself with God?
You do not believe in Hell or you do not believe Hell is forever?
You do believe that the fire will never be quenched don't you?
john.

 

[johnp.]

Greetings Timothy it's nice to meet you.

john.