God does not love all mankind

[mont974x4]

You make quite the leaps.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Spurgeon, like many Calvinists must have been unfamiliar with Jeremiah chapter 18, which Paul referred to in Romans 9:

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

God was speaking of nations when he spoke of Jacob and Esau, and it is true that he loved Jacob and hated Esau, but there is nothing unconditional or unjust about it. God says in Jeremiah 18 (which Paul is referring to) that if he has spoken concerning a nation to pluck it up and destroy it, if that nation turns from it's evil, God will turn from the evil that he thought to do unto them. Likewise, God said that if he had spoken to build and plant a nation, if that nation do evil and not obey his voice, he would repent of the good that he said he would benefit them.

So, there is nothing unconditional in this, and there is nothing unjust in this, God will bless a nation that repents from their evil and does good, and God will punish a nation that turns from him and does evil.
Calvinists err because they do not know (or choose to ignore) OT scripture well.

Except in Romans 9 Paul takes away human ability (good or evil), as a condition for election, by saying Jacob was chosen before any conditions were met.

Romans 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

 

[webdog]

You make quite the leaps.

Empty words without showing how. Do you have kids? Explain to me how you can love your children (with love being a perfect attribute of God) more than God (who is love) can....and if you act as God does by hating someone, even His enemy, you are a murderer in His eyes. Leap with me...

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How is stating God hated Esau (absence of love) not compared to what the pagans and tax collectors (sinners) did?

 

[MB]

Look at webdog making absolute truth fall under his own subjective experience, as if it conveys truth akin to Biblical truth. :laugh:

:wavey:

This isn't about what wd does, it's about what God does. Huge difference. It seems to always turn to "man" within their theology. "Ye shall be as gods..." ?

By the way, welcome aboard Forest.

(I await debwog and others to come in and help solidify that their subjective personal experiences are on the same level of truth as Gods Word. Again)

The really sad fact is that you use this same scripture to prove the most pitiful doctrine I ever heard of. Your own particular election.:laugh: Anyone who can read with out listening to your mouth can see what a farce your claim really is.


Isn't it wonderful the scriptures them selves prove your theories wrong.
MB

 

[webdog]

Look at webdog making absolute truth fall under his own subjective experience, as if it conveys truth akin to Biblical truth. :laugh:

:wavey:

This isn't about what wd does, it's about what God does. Huge difference. It seems to always turn to "man" within their theology. "Ye shall be as gods..." ?

By the way, welcome aboard Forest.

(I await debwog and others to come in and help solidify that their subjective personal experiences are on the same level of truth as Gods Word. Again)

The Sidekick wouldn't know absolute truth if it bit him in the rear end.

Curious, Sidekick...have you ever pointed your "flock" to the BB? I'm sure they would LOVE to see the real you.

 

[mont974x4]

Empty words without showing how. Do you have kids? Explain to me how you can love your children (with love being a perfect attribute of God) more than God (who is love) can....and if you act as God does by hating someone, even His enemy, you are a murderer in His eyes. Leap with me...

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How is stating God hated Esau (absence of love) not compared to what the pagans and tax collectors (sinners) did?

I simply posted the definitions of the original words and you made the leap of claiming I believe things that I didn't say nor did I imply them. Your leaps are intellectually dishonest...therefore, you can leap alone. :wavey:

 

[webdog]

I simply posted the definitions of the original words and you made the leap of claiming I believe things that I didn't say nor did I imply them. Your leaps are intellectually dishonest...therefore, you can leap alone. :wavey:

Hmmm... you said

This places us in a position where we must accept and understand the intensity of God's emotion. To say He simply loves some people less is a mistake. To soften this is to deny an important aspect of God.

Much more than simply the definition of the original words, no? Wouldn't be so quick to throw around the intellectually dishonest label when you appear to employ just that.

Your silence in regards to my points are deafening.

 

[preacher4truth]

I simply posted the definitions of the original words and you made the leap of claiming I believe things that I didn't say nor did I imply them. Your leaps are intellectually dishonest...therefore, you can leap alone. :wavey:

I'm with you on that, you have been misrepresented, and you make a wise decision above.

- Peace

 

[12strings]

I think there are two opposite errors here:

ERROR 1: "God does not hate anyone." ie..."God loves the sinner and hates the sin." This statement is nowhere in the bible! It comes from pagan thought. There are clearly places in the bible where God Hates:

-Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"


ERROR 2: "God does not love all people."
We should also note that God also loves those he hates:
-John 3:16 - (no need to quote that one) [if we need to discuss if "the world" includes unbelievers, we can, but hopefully the following 2 verses will make that discussion unnecessary)
-2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (Some kind of care, which could be defined as "love" is obviously shown here.)
-Matt. 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
-->(God loves his enemies, and expresses this by giving them rain and sun...sometimes called common grace)

Now...He Does NOT Love everyone the same way. He does not love those who have rejected him in the same way he loves those who have received him.

 

[Iconoclast]

Spurgeon, like many Calvinists must have been unfamiliar with Jeremiah chapter 18, which Paul referred to in Romans 9:
Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

God was speaking of nations when he spoke of Jacob and Esau, and it is true that he loved Jacob and hated Esau, but there is nothing unconditional or unjust about it. God says in Jeremiah 18 (which Paul is referring to) that if he has spoken concerning a nation to pluck it up and destroy it, if that nation turns from it's evil, God will turn from the evil that he thought to do unto them. Likewise, God said that if he had spoken to build and plant a nation, if that nation do evil and not obey his voice, he would repent of the good that he said he would benefit them.

So, there is nothing unconditional in this, and there is nothing unjust in this, God will bless a nation that repents from their evil and does good, and God will punish a nation that turns from him and does evil.

Calvinists err because they do not know (or choose to ignore) OT scripture well.

Spurgeon, like many Calvinists must have been unfamiliar with Jeremiah chapter 18, which Paul referred to in Romans

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Sure winman....we never saw it before:thumbs:

Spurgeon was totally unaware of this pathetic misunderstanding of the text...trying to avoid the clear teaching...like right here!

Others, in order to get rid of this ugly text, say, it
does not mean Esau and Jacob; it means the nation; it means Jacob’s
children and Esau’s children; it means the children of Israel and Edom. I
should like to know where the difference lies. Is the difficulty removed by
extending it? Some of the Wesleyan brethren say that there is a national
election; God has chosen one nation and not another. They turn round and
tell us it is unjust in God to choose one man and not another. Now, we ask
them by everything reasonable, is it not equally unjust of God to choose
one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine
overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish
subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the
196
election of a nation but the election of so many units, of so many people?
and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of
individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if — which we do not
for a moment believe — that if there be any injustice in God choosing one
man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in his
choosing one nation and not another. No! the difficulty cannot be got rid of
thus, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God’s Word.
Besides, here is the proof that that is not correct; read the verse preceding
it. It does not say anything at all about nations, it says, “For the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger,” —
referring to the children, not to the nations. Of course the threatening was
afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to
serve Israel. But this text means just what it says; it does not mean nations,
but it means the persons mentioned. “Jacob,” — that is the man whose
name was Jacob — “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.” Take care,
my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God’s Word. I have heard of
folks altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you
cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the
Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavor by God’s
grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the
Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as
sure and fast as the throne of God. If a man wants to enjoy a delightful
prospect, and a mighty mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting
away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain
before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the
accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the
only means of obtaining the end in view. So must we do; we cannot bring
down the truths of God to our poor finite understandings; the mountain
will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher
in our perception of divine things, and in this way only may we hope to
obtain the blessing.

 

[12strings]

WEBDOG: How is stating God hated Esau (absence of love) not compared to what the pagans and tax collectors (sinners) did?

I would ask this: "How can one state that God did NOT hate Esau without flatly contradicting what God's word says?"

 

[Skandelon]

I would ask this: "How can one state that God did NOT hate Esau without flatly contradicting what God's word says?"

I've spoken to a Jewish man who speaks original Aramaic about this passage and he laughed at how Calvinists interpret it. He said that those who understand the original language and the usage of the word "hate: in context with his elective choice would NEVER come to this conclusion. I agree with him for these reasons:

1. Paul begins the chapter expresses extraordinary love for his fellow countrymen who are being hardened in their rebellion, so unless you believe that Paul, writing under inspiration of the Spirit, is more loving than the God who is inspiring him then you can't come to that conclusion.

2. In the original language there are other examples of love/hate being representative of choosing one over another. i.e."...you must hate your mother and father..." Which clearly means you choose God OVER even your own parents, just as Jacob, and his posterity, were chosen OVER Esau, and his posterity, for the noble purpose of bringing redemption.

3. Even Paul refers to them being 'nations' in her womb prior to drawing this comparison, so it is not a stretch to understand his point from a corporate standpoint of using one nation for noble purposes and the other for common use, rather than the idea that God irresistibly saving one and not the other.

 

[Skandelon]

The choice of Jacob over Esau is being compared to God's perceived choice to save one individual (elect) over another (reprobate).

But may I suggest for consideration that the choice is more likely compared to God's choice of Paul over Gamaliel (his Rabbi - or some other random unknown Pharisee of that day). Paul was chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship and bringing the message of divine redemption to the world (not unlike the purpose of God's choice of Israel over other nations, because we know individuals of other nations were saved, but they weren't chosen for the noble purpose of bringing redemption to rest of the world as was Israel).

Why was Paul, a Jew, chosen over Gamaliel, another Jew of 'higher esteem,' for this noble purpose? Why was Gamaliel left for 'common use?' Was Paul more righteous or deserving? NO. He was chosen so that God's purpose in electing Israel would be fulfilled and the message of redemption would come through Israel.

And do we know Gamaliel was lost? Could he have been provoked by envy and saved (Rm 11:14)? Possibly. But that doesn't change the fact that Paul was chosen for noble purposes while other Pharisees were left in their blind and hardened condition, left protesting, "Why has God made me like this?"

 

[webdog]

I would ask this: "How can one state that God did NOT hate Esau without flatly contradicting what God's word says?"

I believe I already addressed that by comparing Bible to Bible (Matt. 10:37, Luke 14:26)

 

[webdog]

I think there are two opposite errors here:

ERROR 1: "God does not hate anyone." ie..."God loves the sinner and hates the sin." This statement is nowhere in the bible! It comes from pagan thought. There are clearly places in the bible where God Hates:

-Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"


ERROR 2: "God does not love all people."
We should also note that God also loves those he hates:
-John 3:16 - (no need to quote that one) [if we need to discuss if "the world" includes unbelievers, we can, but hopefully the following 2 verses will make that discussion unnecessary)
-2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (Some kind of care, which could be defined as "love" is obviously shown here.)
-Matt. 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
-->(God loves his enemies, and expresses this by giving them rain and sun...sometimes called common grace)

Now...He Does NOT Love everyone the same way. He does not love those who have rejected him in the same way he loves those who have received him.

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Wouldn't the other option include hate not meaning the absence of love (as in hating our father or mother)?

 

[webdog]

I would ask this: "How can one state that God did NOT hate Esau without flatly contradicting what God's word says?"

Points not addressed as of yet...

Can we love more than God?

We are not allowed to hate anyone even loving our own enemies, which God describes as a "perfect" love...yet He doesn't even uphold what He commands finite beings to do? Concerning love He is less than perfect?!?

Hating another is considered sin (murder).

If the passage in the OP is to be taken literal, why are we not free to hate (murder) our parents?

 

[Skandelon]

Some here need to understand there has been some disagreement on this particular question within the Reformed tradition:

[In his book,] "The Sovereignty of God," by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"

[In contrast,] the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity. -(ref from John MacArthur)

 

[quantumfaith]

Some here need to understand there has been some disagreement on this particular question within the Reformed tradition:

[In his book,] "The Sovereignty of God," by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"

[In contrast,] the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity. -(ref from John MacArthur)

Now that is "fair and balanced". ......and unafraid.

 

[preacher4truth]

I've spoken to a Jewish man who speaks original Aramaic about this passage and he laughed at how Calvinists interpret it.

Oh no, he's Jewish, speaks original Aramaic, so he must be an authority, and he even laughed. That validates it. We're sunk.

Purely subjective logic here, with other intentions.

Seems Paul was Jewish himself and the context laughs at your interpretation.

For a guy always clamoring for "scholars" for proofs, you sure pull out subjective reasonings incessantly as your "proofs."

:thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Oh no, he's Jewish, speaks original Aramaic, so he must be an authority, and he even laughed. That validates it. We're sunk.

Purely subjective logic here, with other intentions.

Seems Paul was Jewish himself and the context laughs at your interpretation.

For a guy always clamoring for "scholars" for proofs, you sure pull out subjective reasonings incessantly as your "proofs."

:thumbs:

ROFLMBO. So whose scholarship do we acknowledge, yours?