The Hypers

[Eternally-Grateful]

I grant that God loves the elect. My point is God does not love the those who are not among the elect.

I do not agree.

God is holy and His love is therefore holy, thus God does not love the sons of Satin as that is contrary to His essence. In Colossians 3:14 love is called “the bond of perfectness which binds everything together in perfect harmony” ESV Those who are no among the elect are not loved as the is no "bond of unity" between God and Satan's children. A "bond of unity" is everything bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best for others; God himself and those “in Christ” being bonded in agreement.

Nothing is more absurd than to imagine that anyone beloved of God can eternally perish or shall ever experience His everlasting vengeance.

Again, God allowed Israel to rebel and walk away., He also was patient with them. And anlway gave them ann out. Even sending prophets to them begging them to repent.

I see all through the word a God of love. Who is slow to anger.

Even the flood was not a quick response. Noah spent 100 years preaching repentance to the people. And ninevah is a great example. These people were so Evil Jonah wanted nothing to do with even a possibility they may repent. Yet God did not let him walk away. He put roadblocks so he had no choice (well he could have died in that fish). And at the preaching of jonah, ninevah repented and God relented his promise to punish them.

The OT God is a God that almost begs people to repent and turn to God..

You do not do that if you do not love them

 

[fastfredy0]

Again, God allowed Israel to rebel and walk away., He also was patient with them. And anlway gave them ann out. Even sending prophets to them begging them to repent.

I see all through the word a God of love. Who is slow to anger.

Even the flood was not a quick response. Noah spent 100 years preaching repentance to the people. And ninevah is a great example. These people were so Evil Jonah wanted nothing to do with even a possibility they may repent. Yet God did not let him walk away. He put roadblocks so he had no choice (well he could have died in that fish). And at the preaching of jonah, ninevah repented and God relented his promise to punish them.

The OT God is a God that almost begs people to repent and turn to God..

You do not do that if you do not love them

Find a verse saying God loves someone who is in hell.

Premise 1: To be holy is to be moral perfection (pure and righteous), aloof and separated from evil.
Premise 2: God is holy
Premise 3: God's love is holy
Premise 4: Agape love is a volition to favor, it is a "bond of unity" Col. 3:14
Conclusion: God must be separate from evil. This is accomplished by sending the non elect to hell. Since love is measured by
favoring a person, all those in hell are not LOVED. If God loves (favors) the sons of Satin He is not HOLY, but since
God is holy it is clear He does not love those in hell.

God is slow to anger, but the final judgement is such that the non elect will spend 99.9999999999% of their existence in HELL which is an exceedingly indisputable indication of wrath and not love.

You can have the last word if you wish.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Find a verse saying God loves someone who is in hell.

Premise 1: To be holy is to be moral perfection (pure and righteous), aloof and separated from evil.
Premise 2: God is holy
Premise 3: God's love is holy
Premise 4: Agape love is a volition to favor, it is a "bond of unity" Col. 3:14
Conclusion: God must be separate from evil. This is accomplished by sending the non elect to hell. Since love is measured by
favoring a person, all those in hell are not LOVED. If God loves (favors) the sons of Satin He is not HOLY, but since
God is holy it is clear He does not love those in hell.

God is slow to anger, but the final judgement is such that the non elect will spend 99.9999999999% of their existence in HELL which is an exceedingly indisputable indication of wrath and not love.

You can have the last word if you wish.

No need for the last word.

We just will not agree on this. Which is perfectly fine

 

[ReverendRV]

No need for the last word.

We just will not agree on this. Which is perfectly fine

Agreeing to disagree, is a Logical Fallacy...

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Agreeing to disagree, is a Logical Fallacy...

Probably true

But trying to push and push with someone who will never agree or see is prety silly also in fact if anything, it makes both sides look like they are too proud.

John 3 says God loved the world

Now to some, world here does nto mean evveryone

To others, the world does mean everyone.

In this context. The question. Does God love those he sent to hell. Will never be settled. Because of how each interprets the passage.

This is just one example. There are many…

So sometimes It’s better to just walk away. Instead of fighting like it’s the most important thing we must do. (Like sadly some people do)

 

[fastfredy0]

Agreeing to disagree, is a Logical Fallacy...

How's that? We disagree on point "A" and we agree that there is disagreement. That's two different things to agree/disagree to.

 

[ReverendRV]

How's that? We disagree on point "A" and we agree that there is disagreement. That's two different things to agree/disagree to.

I'll put a Link on your Page..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I'll put a Link on your Page..

We both stated our opinion, and arguments.

Also. Many of the arguments have been discussed ad nausium..

So in this case. It is not a logical fallacy.

 

[ReverendRV]

We both stated our opinion, and arguments.

Also. Many of the arguments have been discussed ad nausium..

So in this case. It is not a logical fallacy.

Then continue to press your Point, or accept his Point. Insist you are correct instead of Agreeing to Disagree...

 

[fastfredy0]

Insist you are correct instead of Agreeing to Disagree...

"Agreeing to disagree" is just a way of saying that we won't change one another's mind and declaring a truce.
It is NOT a logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
It is reasonable to conclude that the two of us disagree and we recognize this fact.

 

[ReverendRV]

"Agreeing to disagree" is just a way of saying that we won't change one another's mind and declaring a truce.
It is NOT a logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
It is reasonable to conclude that the two of us disagree and we recognize this fact.

The Fallacy is also known as "I'm entitled to my Opinion". We're not entitled to an Opinion that 2+2=5, and agreeing to disagree here is the Logical Fallacy of Relevance. In Christianity, we have Fundamentals which people cannot agree to disagree on. Agreeing to Disagree means the argument just ain't that important...

Why have the Argument at all then?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Then continue to press your Point, or accept his Point. Insist you are correct instead of Agreeing to Disagree...

And you think that will change his mind? Or mine?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

The Fallacy is also known as "I'm entitled to my Opinion". We're not entitled to an Opinion that 2+2=5, and agreeing to disagree here is the Logical Fallacy of Relevance. In Christianity, we have Fundamentals which people cannot agree to disagree on. Agreeing to Disagree means the argument just ain't that important...

Why have the Argument at all then?

The problem is who is right and who is wrong

Do we sit here and badger each other and attack each other. Or do we find common ground and not hate on each other

 

[ReverendRV]

The problem is who is right and who is wrong

Do we sit here and badger each other and attack each other. Or do we find common ground and not hate on each other

I get it...

But sometimes, it's clear that some ignore the obvious...

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

I get it...

But sometimes, it's clear that some ignore the obvious...

No argument here

 

[makesends]

Which is still love.

He did not hate them in other words.

While we categorize, it might be worth taking a look at some of the attributes of God, always present in him...

We love to generalize what God does in particulars. When God loved Israel, it is worth considering if that implies that he loved every single descendant of Jacob and even those adopted into the nation. I think it does. With a particular love. But not the same as he loves the elect— Israel was just a picture —but still, it is more than worth calling love, including to those he condemns: No need for free will in that equation.

 

[makesends]

Which is still love.

He did not hate them in other words.

Loving someone does not mean that one does not also hate them. That's an assumption. Particularly so when speaking about God, who is beyond our understanding.

Even within humanity, love and hate are only antonyms, not opposites.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The problem is who is right and who is wrong

Do we sit here and badger each other and attack each other. Or do we find common ground and not hate on each other

Firstly disagreement isn't hate. disagreement is just disagreement. Hate is something else entirely, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Secondly, God's word really isn't a matter of opinion. Not mine, and not yours

When we don't agree about a matter, we come together over Scripture to learn who's right. Scripture is the arbiter.

Even within humanity, love and hate are only antonyms, not opposites.

I always thought hate in its truest form was indifference. Just not caring.

When you love you care.

 

[makesends]

I always thought hate in its truest form was indifference. Just not caring.

When you love you care.

Kind of interesting, that. God hating is more than not caring. But in the end, to those who would claim God owes a certain caring respect to any person's humanity, he does have a certain indifference as far as our ideas of 'respect'.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Kind of interesting, that. God hating is more than not caring. But in the end, to those who would claim God owes a certain caring respect to any person's humanity, he does have a certain indifference as far as our ideas of 'respect'.

I used my human understanding on that.

I can across an article earlier today from the Reformed Classicist that was good:

The Reward of the Reprobate — The Reformed Classicalist

There is a place in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus makes a contrast between true spiritual disciplines and those of the religious hypocrite. When it comes to those who give to the needy, those who pray, and those who fast—those that do these simply that others may see them, He says, “Truly, I say

www.reformedclassicalist.com

just an article, not related to the definitions.