The eternal purpose of Christ pt2

[SovereignGrace]

"So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”[Gen. 6:7]

“I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."[Gen. 6:13]

Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.[Gen. 19:24,25]


Then as Iconoclast previously posted The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.[Rom. 1:18]

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.[Eph. 2:1-3]

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.[1 Thess. 2:13-16]


Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[Col. 3:1-6]

Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.[Eph. 5:1-6]

The only thing holding back God's wrath is His mercy. Even in Romans 9 we can read What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”[Rom. 9:22-26]

God is patient with those who are the goats. Why? Because He is not willing that any of His sheep perish. He withholds His wrath on the objects of His wrath until the last 'object of His mercy' is in the sheep pen.

 

[PreachTony]

He killed someone and was not angry? That is one schizophrenic God you are displaying on here. He killed someone, yet was not angry.

When an Israelite priest killed a lamb as part of a sacrifice for sin, do you just assume that the priest was angry at the lamb? What could the lamb possibly have done to bring about in the priest enough anger to warrant killing it?

 

[PreachTony]

Hebrews 12:29 is a reference from Deut. 4:24. Now, I will give you some verses from Deut. 4 to show you what 'consuming fire' means...

Is it not possible that the writer of Hebrews was making an allusion to two other Old Testament phrases? You have the writer suddenly jumping from the saved receiving a kingdom to God pouring out utter destruction.

Consider these two accounts in light of Hebrews 12:28-29.

Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.

1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

 

[Iconoclast]

Is it not possible that the writer of Hebrews was making an allusion to two other Old Testament phrases? You have the writer suddenly jumping from the saved receiving a kingdom to God pouring out utter destruction.

Consider these two accounts in light of Hebrews 12:28-29.

The two passages you offer have nothing to do with Hebrews 12 at all.

I have asked you in a few posts now for your understanding of election as it pertains to God's eternal purpose....this is important....

Also......I asked for one definition for the word Back.....in the paragraph.....your first attempt caused you to use 6 or 7 different words to describe the term. Your explanation was an attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion that the same word can be used with similar but different meanings.

I will just take it that you are forced to concede the point.

Now as far as being angry at sin.....and the sinner......do you think that God had Noah paint smiley faces on the side of the ark saying smile GOD Loves you?

Respond to these three things......election,back,the flood.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

(Many say Jesus was angry here:
Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

or( here:
Mark 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
--There is no word of Jesus being angry here. It doesn't say he is. We simply read that into his actions.
Jesus does not get angry. )



I see......so Jesus was just rearranging the furniture to help them out as He was pleased with their activity......is that it.

 

[PreachTony]

The two passages you offer have nothing to do with Hebrews 12 at all.

I have asked you in a few posts now for your understanding of election as it pertains to God's eternal purpose....this is important....

Also......I asked for one definition for the word Back.....in the paragraph.....your first attempt caused you to use 6 or 7 different words to describe the term. Your explanation was an attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion that the same word can be used with similar but different meanings.

I will just take it that you are forced to concede the point.

Now as far as being angry at sin.....and the sinner......do you think that God had Noah paint smiley faces on the side of the ark saying smile GOD Loves you?

Respond to these three things......election,back,the flood.

If you hadn't noticed, I've kind of pulled away from this discussion. I've done so mainly because I'm getting the impression that it's okay for Calvinists to string together various scriptures, regardless of context, but the moment a non-Cal does this it's "all hands on deck" to take down the non-Cal.

You think you're going to win some cheap victory by providing one paragraph with multiple uses of a single word, as though that proves your point beyond a doubt. When I responded that you could have, should you have wanted, provided a much clear paragraph, you claimed you didn't need an English lesson, as though that won that little battle for your side. God is not the author of confusion, and His word is clear. Yet your side acts as though man cannot take scripture at face value, but instead must piece together disparate scriptures from the old and new in order to get the notion of what one verse in the new means.

As for anger at sin, I guess you're just completely ignoring the point I was making about the priest and the sacrificial lamb. You didn't answer the question I posed, as to if the priest was angry at the lamb. Instead, you referenced the flood. Look, I'm not going to act like God never shows His wrath. God is love. God is also vengeful, jealous, and a perfect judge. No, God didn't have Noah paint happy words on the Ark. But remember what Jesus said when people acted as though others were worse sinners simply because calamity befell them. The Galileans and those on whom the tower in Siloam fell were not worse sinners, as Jesus proclaimed. Rain falls on the just and the unjust. When tornadoes hit the midwest, do you think they only hit the houses of the unrepentant? Do you think only unsaved sinners died in the floods after Hurricane Katrina? Do you think the people who lived before the flood were that much worse than we are now? God's never going to destroy the whole earth with water, as He did then. The destruction awaiting those in the post-flood generations is reserved to fire and fervent heat.

As for election...you're coming at this topic from the Calvinist side and I'm coming from the non-Cal side. I doubt either of us can provide a definition the other will ever hold to. Your side states that God has already chose out those that will be saved, and has no intention on saving those that remain. This, as other non-Cals have pointed out, leaves us scratching our heads as to the point of all of these "general calls" and invitations in the scripture. We don't understand why God would command all to repent and then never move some to repent, but would blame them all the same. We don't understand why Jesus would lament Jerusalem not turning to Him when it required Him moving them in the first place. Folks on your side have accused us of a schizophrenic God, but we see the same thing on your side. We see Jesus drawing ALL men unto Him. Your side sees Jesus only drawing the Elect, and thus you have to say that "All men" actually only means "the Elect." We see Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the world. Your side sees Him only as the propitiation for the sins of the Elect, and thus "the sins of the world" must actually mean just "the sins of the Elect." But in John 6 Jesus says "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Did Jesus choose out a devil, Judas, just so he could later be damned? Or did Jesus do so to show that all humanity was covered under His blood, and could see His miracles, and could hear His words, but some might still not believe? I know it pains your side to give man any ability at all, but the scripture clearly bears out that man has to respond. Again, no non-Cal will tell you that man saved himself. God must still draw, and man must still respond, but the salvation is still purely of God.

 

[Protestant]

If you hadn't noticed, I've kind of pulled away from this discussion. I've done so mainly because I'm getting the impression that it's okay for Calvinists to string together various scriptures, regardless of context, but the moment a non-Cal does this it's "all hands on deck" to take down the non-Cal.

You think you're going to win some cheap victory by providing one paragraph with multiple uses of a single word, as though that proves your point beyond a doubt. When I responded that you could have, should you have wanted, provided a much clear paragraph, you claimed you didn't need an English lesson, as though that won that little battle for your side. God is not the author of confusion, and His word is clear. Yet your side acts as though man cannot take scripture at face value, but instead must piece together disparate scriptures from the old and new in order to get the notion of what one verse in the new means.

As for anger at sin, I guess you're just completely ignoring the point I was making about the priest and the sacrificial lamb. You didn't answer the question I posed, as to if the priest was angry at the lamb. Instead, you referenced the flood. Look, I'm not going to act like God never shows His wrath. God is love. God is also vengeful, jealous, and a perfect judge. No, God didn't have Noah paint happy words on the Ark. But remember what Jesus said when people acted as though others were worse sinners simply because calamity befell them. The Galileans and those on whom the tower in Siloam fell were not worse sinners, as Jesus proclaimed. Rain falls on the just and the unjust. When tornadoes hit the midwest, do you think they only hit the houses of the unrepentant? Do you think only unsaved sinners died in the floods after Hurricane Katrina? Do you think the people who lived before the flood were that much worse than we are now? God's never going to destroy the whole earth with water, as He did then. The destruction awaiting those in the post-flood generations is reserved to fire and fervent heat.

As for election...you're coming at this topic from the Calvinist side and I'm coming from the non-Cal side. I doubt either of us can provide a definition the other will ever hold to. Your side states that God has already chose out those that will be saved, and has no intention on saving those that remain. This, as other non-Cals have pointed out, leaves us scratching our heads as to the point of all of these "general calls" and invitations in the scripture. We don't understand why God would command all to repent and then never move some to repent, but would blame them all the same. We don't understand why Jesus would lament Jerusalem not turning to Him when it required Him moving them in the first place. Folks on your side have accused us of a schizophrenic God, but we see the same thing on your side. We see Jesus drawing ALL men unto Him. Your side sees Jesus only drawing the Elect, and thus you have to say that "All men" actually only means "the Elect." We see Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the world. Your side sees Him only as the propitiation for the sins of the Elect, and thus "the sins of the world" must actually mean just "the sins of the Elect." But in John 6 Jesus says "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Did Jesus choose out a devil, Judas, just so he could later be damned? Or did Jesus do so to show that all humanity was covered under His blood, and could see His miracles, and could hear His words, but some might still not believe? I know it pains your side to give man any ability at all, but the scripture clearly bears out that man has to respond. Again, no non-Cal will tell you that man saved himself. God must still draw, and man must still respond, but the salvation is still purely of God.

This extensive post proves that Tony has never understood a word we have said.

For that matter, neither has Pastor DHK.

Prayerfully there are others who have read the debates and gained valuable insight as to the nature of our holy God and His sovereign right to elect some for gracious mercy, as well as to reject others for righteous judgment.

 

[PreachTony]

This extensive post proves that Tony has never understood a word we have said.

For that matter, neither has Pastor DHK.

Prayerfully there are others who have read the debates and gained valuable insight as to the nature of our holy God and His sovereign right to elect some for gracious mercy, as well as to reject others for righteous judgment.

Ah yes, the old Calvinist standard "you're not smart enough to get it" mantra. That's why I need to leave. You guys have a sick theology in which you think you can just belittle those who disagree and act like you are the intellectual ones. Fine. Protestant, you can have it. I'm out. I know what the Bible has shown me, and I know what the Spirit has led me to. If you don't think that's good enough, then I can't help you, bud. Have fun.

 

[DHK]

Yes he edits out things.....the point was already made clearly. God hates all the workers of iniquity. ...it could be sodomites...it could be religious persons who trust in their own devices.

Notice in post 92.....he gives a good quote but then misses the proper understanding by a mile.

You err not knowing the scriptures neither the power of God and simply spew out the foolish words of others without giving thought to your own.

Quote Psalm 7:11 from your own KJV. This time read it carefully first from your own hard copy of your own Bible.

Notice the words "with the wicked." They are in Italics. They are not in the original. They are not in the Hebrew texts. Check other translations. Most did not use such phraseology. The KJV translators inserted these words wrongly. God is not angry with the wicked. There are no wicked to be angry with in this verse. They aren't there. They aren't in the Hebrew.

Even the ASV translates it this way:
Psa 7:11 God is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath indignation every day.
--It is far more accurate this time. He has indignation. But the text says nothing "about the wicked."
The words are not found in the Hebrew. This is something SG completely ignores.

 

[DHK]

If someone steals your car, that would make you angry. Now, if you go and chance them down and thump them, that is sinning. If you are angry and call the police and allow them to apprehend them, you have been angry, yes, but did not sin. Getting angry is not a sin, monsieur. It is how you handle your anger that determines if you sin or not.

You have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of "anger," and its common usage today as opposed to the way the word was used 400 years ago. God is not an angry God. He is not a God that loses his temper--ever!
He did not get angry when he cleansed the Temple. People read that into this episode. If he did he would have sinned.

400 years ago it was written "Be ye angry and sin not."

Anger is a sin which we are all prone to.
In 1912 Weymouth gave the sense of the verse in his translation:
(WNT) If angry, beware of sinning. Let not your irritation last until the sun goes down;

Again, you ignore what Jesus said about anger leading to murder in Matthew 5.
John says the same thing in 1John2. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Your quotation of those many verses simply depicts God as an angry old man, something the atheists would have a heyday with.

I used a human illustration and you dismissed it.
A father uses discipline with anger and even our society can see that it is child abuse.
A father must mete out discipline without anger.
If you don't like the illustration, God uses the same illustration in Hebrews 12.
He does not discipline us in anger, but in love. He is a loving God, not an angry old man, as you depict him.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

You have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of "anger," and its common usage today as opposed to the way the word was used 400 years ago. God is not an angry God. He is not a God that loses his temper--ever!

Brother DHK,

God most certainly does get angry, He said to Israel " Also in Horeb ye provoked the Lord to wrath, so that the Lord was angry with you to have destroyed you" (Deuteronomy 9:8)


You should do a study on the word "anger" in the Bible when you have time. It is used a countless number of times associated with the Lord. There is not enough time to review all such verses on this debate forum.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of "anger," and its common usage today as opposed to the way the word was used 400 years ago. God is not an angry God. He is not a God that loses his temper--ever!
He did not get angry when he cleansed the Temple. People read that into this episode. If he did he would have sinned.

400 years ago it was written "Be ye angry and sin not."

Anger is a sin which we are all prone to.
In 1912 Weymouth gave the sense of the verse in his translation:
(WNT) If angry, beware of sinning. Let not your irritation last until the sun goes down;

Again, you ignore what Jesus said about anger leading to murder in Matthew 5.
John says the same thing in 1John2. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Your quotation of those many verses simply depicts God as an angry old man, something the atheists would have a heyday with.

I used a human illustration and you dismissed it.
A father uses discipline with anger and even our society can see that it is child abuse.
A father must mete out discipline without anger.
If you don't like the illustration, God uses the same illustration in Hebrews 12.
He does not discipline us in anger, but in love. He is a loving God, not an angry old man, as you depict him.

Okay, is God angry with Satan? Was He angry when Satan and his minions rebelled?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Ah yes, the old Calvinist standard "you're not smart enough to get it" mantra. That's why I need to leave. You guys have a sick theology in which you think you can just belittle those who disagree and act like you are the intellectual ones. Fine. Protestant, you can have it. I'm out. I know what the Bible has shown me, and I know what the Spirit has led me to. If you don't think that's good enough, then I can't help you, bud. Have fun.

That is not what he meant PreachTony, or I do not think so. We are saying one thing and you think we are saying another. He means you are not understanding our view.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of "anger," and its common usage today as opposed to the way the word was used 400 years ago. God is not an angry God. He is not a God that loses his temper--ever!
He did not get angry when he cleansed the Temple. People read that into this episode. If he did he would have sinned.

400 years ago it was written "Be ye angry and sin not."

Anger is a sin which we are all prone to.
In 1912 Weymouth gave the sense of the verse in his translation:
(WNT) If angry, beware of sinning. Let not your irritation last until the sun goes down;

Again, you ignore what Jesus said about anger leading to murder in Matthew 5.
John says the same thing in 1John2. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Your quotation of those many verses simply depicts God as an angry old man, something the atheists would have a heyday with.

I used a human illustration and you dismissed it.
A father uses discipline with anger and even our society can see that it is child abuse.
A father must mete out discipline without anger.
If you don't like the illustration, God uses the same illustration in Hebrews 12.
He does not discipline us in anger, but in love. He is a loving God, not an angry old man, as you depict him.

Anger leading to sin/murder. It is like temptation. Temptation can lead to sin, but in and of itself, it is not sin. Anger, in and of itself, is not sin, but can lead to sin.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

You have only demonstrated a misunderstanding of "anger," and its common usage today as opposed to the way the word was used 400 years ago. God is not an angry God. He is not a God that loses his temper--ever!
He did not get angry when he cleansed the Temple. People read that into this episode. If he did he would have sinned.

400 years ago it was written "Be ye angry and sin not."

Anger is a sin which we are all prone to.
In 1912 Weymouth gave the sense of the verse in his translation:
(WNT) If angry, beware of sinning. Let not your irritation last until the sun goes down;

Again, you ignore what Jesus said about anger leading to murder in Matthew 5.
John says the same thing in 1John2. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Your quotation of those many verses simply depicts God as an angry old man, something the atheists would have a heyday with.

I used a human illustration and you dismissed it.
A father uses discipline with anger and even our society can see that it is child abuse.
A father must mete out discipline without anger.
If you don't like the illustration, God uses the same illustration in Hebrews 12.
He does not discipline us in anger, but in love. He is a loving God, not an angry old man, as you depict him.

"For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter" (Isaiah 34:2)

"Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:" (Isaiah 30:27)

 

[SovereignGrace]

You err not knowing the scriptures neither the power of God and simply spew out the foolish words of others without giving thought to your own.

Quote Psalm 7:11 from your own KJV. This time read it carefully first from your own hard copy of your own Bible.

Notice the words "with the wicked." They are in Italics. They are not in the original. They are not in the Hebrew texts. Check other translations. Most did not use such phraseology. The KJV translators inserted these words wrongly. God is not angry with the wicked. There are no wicked to be angry with in this verse. They aren't there. They aren't in the Hebrew.

Even the ASV translates it this way:
Psa 7:11 God is a righteous judge, Yea, a God that hath indignation every day.
--It is far more accurate this time. He has indignation. But the text says nothing "about the wicked."
The words are not found in the Hebrew. This is something SG completely ignores.

"With the wicked" I do not deny what you are saying. Praytell, then who does He have indignation for?


Indignation: anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment.

So God was only annoyed by Satan's rebellion? He was only annoyed by Satan's affront on His sovereignity and omnipotence?

Annoyed: slightly angry; irritated.

Irritated: showing or feeling slight anger; annoyed.

Either God was angry, annoyed(slightly angry{which is still angry}), or irritated(slightly angry{which is still angry}), at Satan and his minions.

You have no biblical support for you saying God does not get angry.

 

[SovereignGrace]

DHK,

Again, you do not see how you have God as a schizophrenic God.

You say 'God loves everybody equally' and then tosses unrepentant sinners, those He loves, into eternal flames.

You say 'God loves everybody equally' but the bible says He hated Esau.

Hebrew word for 'hated' from Mal. 3:1

to hate, be hateful, to hate, of man, of God, hater, one hating, enemy, to be hated, hater, of persons, nations, God, wisdom.

Greek word for 'hated' from Rom. 9:13

to hate, pursue with hatred, detest, to be hated, detested.

Detest: dislike intensely.


Intensely: existing or occurring in a high or extreme degree; acute, strong, or vehement, as sensations, feelings, or emotions; of an extreme kind; very great, as in strength, keenness, severity, or the like; having or showing great strength, strong feeling, or tension, as a person, the face, or language.

You have no biblical support, mon ami.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello PT

I intend to fully respond the post 146 when I get to a keyboard few hours

but in the meantime on the third point about election if you remember originally I said to you what if someone came up to you and said pt what do you believe the Bible teaches about election

whatever is this all about
now in your response here you said well from your side and Calvin set this. or that

but if you remember I said what if there was no Calvinists no Calvinism.

n is someone is reading a Bible and they come up to you and ask the question what is this all about


that's what I wanted respond to what I wanted your definition your understanding the biblical teaching of the election

 

[DHK]

DHK,
Intensely: existing or occurring in a high or extreme degree; acute, strong, or vehement, as sensations, feelings, or emotions; of an extreme kind; very great, as in strength, keenness, severity, or the like; having or showing great strength, strong feeling, or tension, as a person, the face, or language.

You have no biblical support, mon ami.

Do you hate your mother and father, your brothers and sisters?
If not you are not following the commands of Christ are you?

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
--What kind of Christian are you if you don't have hate?
That sounds really good to the unsaved doesn't it? Go ahead and spread your religion of hate, without trying to explain what is really behind the meaning of these words!

Did God hate Esau. No. He loved him.

Rebecca was informed, The older will serve the younger (cf. Gen_25:23), a divine choice confirmed by God’s declaration, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (cf. Mal_1:2-3). Esau, the older, did not actually serve Jacob, his younger twin; but Esau’s descendants, the Edomites, did (cf. 1Sa_14:47; 2Sa_8:14; 1Ki_11:15-16; 1Ki_22:47; 2Ki_14:7). God’s “love” for Jacob was revealed in His choice of Jacob and God’s “hatred” for Esau was seen in His rejecting Esau for the line of promise. Hatred in this sense is not absolute but relative to a higher choice (cf. Mat_6:24; Luk_14:26; Joh_12:25). (Walvoord)

As in Luke 14:26, "hate" is used relative to love, meaning to love less.
If you read all the accounts concerning Esau, you will find God's love.
But as usual the Calvinist jumps to unwarranted conclusions. It is pity.

 

[PreachTony]

Responding even though I'm not DHK...

Again, you do not see how you have God as a schizophrenic God.

You say 'God loves everybody equally' and then tosses unrepentant sinners, those He loves, into eternal flames.

Every non-Cal and non-Cal church that I know teaches that God saves man, enabling us to enter His glory. They teach that man's unbelief is the cause of man being cast into everlasting fire. From what I can gather, Calvinism teaches something similar, but they add the caveat that God must cause a person to believe. If God does not cause a person to believe, then ultimately it is because of God that men are cast into eternal flames. I'd tell you once more about all those invitations, but your side has even said that there is a general call, so God calls everyone, does not allow a portion of that group to repent and believe, and then punishes them for not repenting and believing.

You say 'God loves everybody equally' but the bible says He hated Esau.

You seem to be pinning God's love and hatred on the physical well being of the person loved or hated. Consider the OT scripture that Paul refers to in Romans 9:

2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Here we see that God's hatred for Esau is displayed in Esau's land and heritage being laid waste. Physical calamity came upon Esau. If suffering is the sign of God's hatred, then God must have really hated the disciples, considering all they suffered for His name's sake.