And I made mine, proving your point incorrect AND I invited you into the opportunity to discuss the video's content amicably.
Those two statements contradict one another. reporting an intent to stay away
and then commenting further is not staying away. It's like when someone says they're going to ignore someone and then they post in contradiction of their own report. The video is wrong and wrong in numerous ways.
The video opens with a statement he receives and "interesting" question" that he then, immediately qualifies as "shallow," "inept," "not thought through." Why would an interesting question be shallow. He never defines his terms and never proves his appraisal. What he has done is commit the logical fallacy known as the appeal to ridicule. The question is wrong because it is shallow and inept. So right from the start he has set up the listener and set up the listener with a personal opinion and set up the listener with a derogatory personal opinion. The implication is that people who ask shallow, inept, not-thought-through questions are, likewise, shallow, inept, and not thinking things through. It's not a functional way to start any apologetic.
He then continues on with the labeling, calling the question "vague and vacuous because it does not complete things." He then changes the question and answers the replacement question. The rest of the video addresses whether or not God loves some and hates others. He does not state it, but the implication is that hate is the opposite of love when that is not true. Hate is not the absence of love. What he's done is a bait and switch.
He then frames the original question as something a humanist would ask when the fact is anyone and everyone could ask the question regardless of their theological orientation (excepting those of the atheist persuasion). Logically what he has done is establish a boogeyman. It's a form of strawman argument implying only humanists ask that question. He then further qualifies his boogeyman as either a "rationalist" or a "mystic" (which he misrepresents with the supposed mystic making an appeal to emotion). Not everyone who asks, "Does God love everyone?" is humanist (or a rationalist or mystic). He then marginalizes the inquirer with an appeal to anecdotal experience and an misguided appeal to authority. After setting up the red herring of the humanist boogeyman, he exalts himself. He believes God is the measure of all things. The implication is that if the question "Does God love everybody?" is asked then the person asking must be a humanist and does not believe God is the measure of everything.
He is two minutes into his lesson and hasn't answered the question. Instead, rather than answer the question asked, he creates a boogeyman and commits at least a half-dozen logical fallacies. Go back and listen critically and verify this for yourself.
He then changes the question again. The new question is, "Does God love anybody?" This is another bait and switch. God could love person x, person y, and or person z but that would not prove anything relevant to whether or not God loves everybody. Here he has committed a construction fallacy. Then he appeals to sophistry with an appeal to a rhetorical question (why assume God should or ought) and his own personal anecdotal experience (what it is he assumes should be thought). His personal opinions are not an answer to anything and the fact he's even broaching that content is directly contrary to his statement God is the measure, not him! If God loves anybody that is a shock! Hogwash! Baloney! It's not a shock to me. That God would create out of His ontologically existing love and love the creatures He created is not shocking. The assertion is profoundly out of character with scripture, and he's said God is the measure of the answer to the question asked. He then commits another red herring bait and switch with the statement "No one deserves the love of God." That is certainly true, but the question asked is not "Does anyone deserve the love of God?" The question is "Does God love everybody?" Supposedly the question, "Does God love everybody?" assumes a lot of things. That may be true, but it does NOT assume many of the things he has assumed.
He then opens the Bible to Romans 9 as if the middle of the Bible contains the definitive answer. Having started his answer to the question asked (his answer, not the answer), he selects the example of Jacob and Esau in which covenantal love is juxtaposed with love and hate. Soteriological love is not the only love God expresses. Hate is not the antithesis of love. God did love Esau, but not within the covenant made with Abraham (we do not actually know Esau's eternal disposition because scripture is silent on that matter).
We do know that Esau testified to the blessings he received from God, and he said those things to his brother at least in part to assuage Jacob's guilt and feelings thereof (see Genesis 33). Did God bless Esau in hate?
Yes, I do know that. And there are at least two additional different meanings in Hebrew. You might want to tell Mr. Morey that fact because he did not cover all the bases. He was rather myopic with his arguments.
Morey then changes the question to be answered again! "Does the same Bible ever say God hates people?" He then appeals to all the verses that mention wrath and anger. He's ignoring all the many verses that mention love. He's committed two more bait-and-switches. It's hugely, ironic, and paradoxical because the fact of scripture is that God loved some sinners so much that He provided a means for them to escape both sin and His wrath. All that talk about God's anger and wrath on the sinner as proof God does not love everybody is undermined by the fact God loved the sinner (some sinners, at least) enough to provide salvation from sin and wrath. Morey has been very selective with his use of scripture (completely ignoring the OT) and argued what amounts to a confirmation bias. Perhaps the worst part of his conduct is his mockery of others with his speech affectations; the ridicule intending to marginalize others. We're more than five minutes into a 9-minute teaching and he still has not answered the question asked.
The rest of the video continues on in the same demonstrably eisegetic and illogical vein. Morey is supposed to be a Reformed apologist, but he's done a very poor job of presenting whole Calvinist theology, not just the Bible. I won't waste more time, effort, and space in the thread presenting the many other problems in that video, but I will present everyone with an interest with a link to what R. C. Sproul said on the matter
HERE.
Christologically, God does not love everybody and, sadly, most Reformed teaching of the subject of divine love are couched in the Christological relationship or covenant. What should be of further regret is that most teachings are also couched in the misguided dichotomy of love verses hate when hate is not the opposite of love.
The opposite of love is
apathy.
And I will expect adherence to that statement, and nothing further will be posted for me to read.
Everyone should be as critical of extrabiblical sources as they are of my posts. A lot fewer disagreements among us all would occur.
)
... evil is not a thing; rather, the lack of righteousness. God's decree dictated that God would create a man named Adam and that man would sin. God, being almighty could have created a man that would never sin similar to what He has done with 2/3s of the angels. I'm not sure what the statement "Adam was not made a sinner" means. I do know God planned it all and everything created was done so by God.
