The Myth of saying that God Loved all men in the world without exception !

[TMSO]

Nice job with this. Would you comment on this verse?

1John 4:7 (WEBSTR) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is from God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.

Well, obviously God isn't hate in this verse. So, could you explain this verse based on what Jesus said in Luke? If we are to hate, how do we fit in this verse? Or, is there a different level to love that you are still ignoring?

 

[TMSO]

Never heard of Ravi Zacharias~but, I agree we can never be sure of anyone. The best we can do is to be persuaded of some.

2 Timothy 1:5​

“When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.”

Love "demands/teaches" us that we believe the best of others until they show us otherwise. This is basically what I have lived by for most of my Christian life.

Without going too much into Hebrews 6, I would not disagree with your understanding here. I believe Hebrews 6 is warning us not to continue seeking repentance from men/women that never commits themselves to the scriptures but are in and out. It is a fact that ministers waste a lot of time of what they call backsliders when in reality, they are nothing more than tares among the wheat and some are not even that! We should move on to other doctrines instead of preaching the same old message of repentance from dead work (which many of them have nothing more than that) laying the same foundation over and over again, is not allowing others to grow in grace and knowledge of the truth.

The book of Hebrews was written to the Jews. The audience was made up of three different groups of Jews. Those who were saved. Those who were not. And those who were sitting on the fence, like the luke warm of Laodicea. They have neither accepted nor rejected the gospel. The warning is for them. If they reject, after all they have been through in the church, then there is no place for repentance for them because Christ will not be sacrificed a second time.

Really, where do you see that in the scriptures? Brother, you need to first ponder the scriptures and not listen to other voices outside of the word of God~or/and, compare all spirits to God's testimony of what is truth.

It is called the great commission. Jesus' command to the disciples. Matthew 28:18-20:
"18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Wait, that is exactly what I said. So... here is where I saw it in scripture.

Do you know that Christ, forbid Paul to go into certain places?

Acts 16:6​

“Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,”

When the White horse left Jerusalem in Revelation six, it went up and turn left toward Europe! It did not go toward India and China, and even until this day we see the results of that!

Revelation 6:2​

“And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”

The white horse (symbolic of men sent by God) from the early church went forth with the gospel from Jerusalem conquering and to conquer, and man did it ever! The church from Jerusalem turned the world upside down~but mostly through the regions we read about in the scriptures, hardly a word about India and China, even though we know eventually a few went there, but nothing like Europe! Those two countries make up most of the world's population~around 34%!

No, no it is not. The white horse is the horse of the Antichrist, who conquers through peace. Note he has a bow, but no arrows. And it is symbolic of a man. The one who will conquer the world as Antichrist.

Pretty sure I do, and have for fifty years since my mid-twenties. Briefly:

Whosoever does not mean all without exceptions, but all without distinction! In the OT God made a clear distinction between Israel and other nations as to who his people where, or whom was He the God of. Under the NT, there is no distinction among nations as to who are the people of God, because he has chosen people from all nations of the earth. Whosoever will is a New Testament doctrine, and it is still limited to whom God calls.

It is preached to all, but only those whom God has unconditionally elected will be the whosoever wills that will be saved. In God's eyes, it isn't whosoever will, but His elect that will.

 

[Mr GLee]

The book of Hebrews was written to the Jews. The audience was made up of three different groups of Jews. Those who were saved. Those who were not. And those who were sitting on the fence, like the luke warm of Laodicea. They have neither accepted nor rejected the gospel. The warning is for them. If they reject, after all they have been through in the church, then there is no place for repentance for them because Christ will not be sacrificed a second time.

The book of Hebrew was written to everyone that has freely been given born agin ears to hear .

God is not a racist. He is the father of all the nations as families of the world .Whenever two or three gather under the authority as it is written he is there yoked with them, making the daily burdens lighter with a living hope beyond the grave.

Revelations 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

 

[JIM]

The book of Hebrew was written to everyone that has freely been given born agin ears to hear .

Born again ears????

 

[Mr GLee]

Born again ears????

Thanks a metaphor

Ears that hear the interpretation of Christ. The spiritual unseen eternal things of Christ .The interpretation that removes the scales from the eyes.

Isaiah 33:15He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;

Isaiah 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

 

[Red Baker]

But I would argue that their loving God is the precedent for being born again (John 1:12-13; Rom 6:4; Col 2:12-13).

Jim, you love God because he first loved you. You have the cart before the horse in your theology. It is the horse that pulls the cart, not the cart pulling the horse.

 

[Red Baker]

If you believe that is preaching another gospel, then you don't know what the gospel is. The gospel isn't come to Christ, it is Christ and Christ crucified. If they teach that, and you say that that is a different gospel, then the problem lies with you not believing Christ is the heart of the gospel.

I'll only say this for now~Nothing but the Lord Jesus Christ is the means of our salvation from sin and condemnation There are means that are necessary to the revealing and enjoying the comfort of it, as the Holy Spirit and ministers to reveal it and faith to receive it; also, there be fruits and effects of the love of God, as faith, love, and obedience to Christ…yet these are no means of our salvation.

The gospel in a nutshell is found here:

Galatians 2:16

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

and here:

Romans 5:19​

“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

 

[JIM]

Jim, you love God because he first loved you. You have the cart before the horse in your theology. It is the horse that pulls the cart, not the cart pulling the horse.

I agree that we love God because He first loved us. But I don't agree that He must first regenerate us before He loves us. That makes no sense to me at all and I don't believe that is biblical.

Galatians 2:16

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Red, I absolutely reject the erroneous translation/interpretation of the KJV for the word OF in Galatians 2:16 or Philippians 3:9 or Romans 3:22.

If you wish to translate/interpret that as faithfulness of Jesus Christ, we could discuss that. But under no circumstance will I accept faith OF Jesus christ as Jesus' believing in God. That is an oxymoron.

and here:

Romans 5:19​

“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

It is important to understand that passage as comparing only the effect of Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience upon humanity. It is not about the effect of our disobedience one way or the other. And just as the many were made sinners at birth, then by all manner of interpretation, the many will be made righteous at birth. The many made sinners are precisely the same many that were made righteous. In other words, the obedience of Christ has completely undone the disobedience of Adam. What each individual does after being born righteous is on them. And we know that if they live long enough to be able to sin, they will sin.

 

[Red Baker]

I agree that we love God because He first loved us. But I don't agree that He must first regenerate us before He loves us. That makes no sense to me at all and I don't believe that is biblical.

God regenerates us because he chose/purposed to love us

If you wish to translate/interpret that as faithfulness of Jesus Christ, we could discuss that. But under no circumstance will I accept faith OF Jesus christ as Jesus' believing in God. That is an oxymoron.

Jim, it is only an oxymoron is your thinking, because you reject that Jesus Christ as the Son of Man had faith in God as our surety, as our personal representative before God's law. But, that's the only such scriptures as Romans 5:19 is to be understood. Jim, you are kicking against the pricks~you will lose this battle.

It is important to understand that passage as comparing only the effect of Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience upon humanity.

Briefly........Humanity? Not even close. Paul is addressing the effect of what Adam's disobedience had upon his posterity at the fall/Adam point of sinning.

And Jesus' obedience upon all of those he stood as the surety for.

And just as the many were made sinners at birth, then by all manner of interpretation, the many will be made righteous at birth.

Jim, I thought you were a strong Republican, like me~life begins at conception, not birth. John the Baptist leap for joy at six month old!

David said in sin did his mother conceived him~children are born sinners~they come forth from the womb speaking lies, crying mine, mine! It's a battle from day one to teach them to love, share, to be obedience. If children are not born sinners then God was unrighteous in commanding Israel to slay every thing that breath among their enemies when they went to battle against them, including suckling infants. You know scriptures, I do not need to provided them here.

What each individual does after being born righteous is on them. And we know that if they live long enough to be able to sin, they will sin.

We have once before went verse by verse through Romans five, on another forum, not going to do it again. Just as you said above, "it is on them," it is on you after the truth has clearly been presented, then whatever you do with the truth, is on you...this can be said equally to all of us.

 

[Red Baker]

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.

So... do you hate your father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and even your own life? If you say you don't, then Jesus says you cannot be His disciple. And, since you are unwilling to recognize the difference in love, then you are not allowed to recognize a difference in hate here. So again, do you absolutely despise them with all your heart, and despise yourself? If not, you are not Jesus disciple. This is what your comment sounds to me about love. Unwilling to recognize anything other then one track. I bet you look at Luke 14:26 as not being one track. In fact, you probably say that it is Jesus just talking about the level of love. That is, we are to so love God with all our being, that all our other loves appear as hate. Is there anything, or anyone in the Bible who supports such a view? Yeah. John does. Why? If you hate your brother, you are in the dark until now. You are not a believer if you hate your brother. So even John understood what Jesus was saying was not actual hate, but where our love for God is such that all our other loves appear to be hate. Our love for God... the sun.

Sorry, it took me a couple of days to get to this.

I agree with your understanding of Luke 14:26 ~ not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is commanded by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in:

Matthew 10:37​

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

But, I must ask~what does this have to do with God's love being for all without exception?

God loves all of humanity. DO NOT SAY WITHOUT EXCEPTION. This is corporate level. I like Microsoft... Bill Gates... not so much. However, he is included in the umbrella of Microsoft. If I am just talking about Microsoft, it is all good. If I zone in on Bill Gates, I'm no longer talking about just Microsoft. I have taken it to a different level. Now I'm being personal. As such, I could then use that to reflect poorly on Microsoft, though that is wrong. Why? His position. They have no choice in the matter.

It is not easy to follow your reasoning, though I'm trying hard to do so.

We are talking about God loving or hating before he created anyone, or anything, before they had done good or evil. Through his infinite foreknowledge he knew that if he did not have an election of grace, none would have ever come to have a relationship with God on their own~impossible. Knowing this truth, God could only love those whom he knew would be just as holy as he is, by sending his Son to be their surety~so grace and mercy were given to his elect from the foundation of the world. That's the only way possible for God loved and fellowship with men in the OT before Christ came and died for them~eternally he love them...... God considered them holy by the doctrine of Imputation done for the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8​

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

2nd Timothy 1:9​

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”

Psalms 32:1,2~"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile."

In this manner God can love (those who are of the very elect) and hates his enemies whom he has not chosen. The love and hate doctrine must be address from this perspective. I know of no other way of properly addressing this subject.

God's point wasn't that He loves Jacob and hates Esau.

Well it was, not sure why you think otherwise.

His point is to make known His purpose in election. It isn't because He knew who someone would be. It isn't in reaction to something someone is going to do, or has done. How do we know? He said that before they were born, before they had done anything, He had already chosen to love Jacob and hate Esau. Neither Jacob or Esau had any merit by which God should love or hate them. God didn't use merit. He simply chose to love one and not the other before they were born, and before they had done anything. Or even had a thought.

Okay, I agree with this, which is going against your first sentence.

And on top of that, it wasn't foreknowledge.

Here is were you go wrong~for it was based on God's foreknowledge of knowing that if he did not have an election of grace, then NONE would have EVER come on their OWN! If this is not so, then where does this scripture fit into the equation, or I should say the doctrine of love and hate?

1st Peter 1:2​

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

God definitely elected based on his foreknowledge~and that know
ledge was not our good works before hand, for the scriptures rejects that false doctrine many times over. His foreknowledge is based upon him knowing the end from the beginning~knowing that if he did not have an election by grace, none would have ever been saved from sin and condemnation on their own, impossible.

Again, there is a love God has for His creation, that which was made in His image. Only love, no hate for His image. (Would that not constitute hate for self?) The hate God has for Esau is not how we understand hate as humans. The reasoning behind God's love for Jacob and hate for Esau should tell you that right off the bat. Jacob had not done anything deserving of love, and Esau had not done anything deserving of hate, and God did not take their lives into account. There was no foreknowledge involved in God's choice. Jesus was clear on that. If man cannot be saved in and of himself, but it takes God to make all things possible, to include salvation, then foreknowledge is worthless. Why? How everyone turns out in the end would be based on God's actions, not on man's actions. The better question would be "What foreknowledge?" God planned/determined it. If He did not, then Jesus' answer to the disciples question stands, and no one is saved.

That's your doctrine, not God's. God in his foreknowledge knew man would lose that image as soon as when he left Adam and Eve to themselves. Remember, God love and hate before he even created man knowing what man would do. Does God have any love for the fallen angels that sinned? for the Devil? They were created higher than man? The image of God consist in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, The fallen angles have been cast down to hell into chains of darkness!

Let me stop and make another quick post on 2nd Peter 2:4:

 

[Red Baker]

2 Peter 2:4

"For if God spared not the angles that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto the judgement."

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned"~By whom are meant the devil and his angels; who are spirits created by God and as such were good; their first estate which they left was pure and holy, as well as high and honourable; they, were at first in the truth, though they abode not in it; they were once among the morning stars and sons of God, and were angels of light; their numbers are many, and therefore are here expressed in the plural number, "angels", though it cannot be said how large, a number that cannot be counted.

"God spared not"~ Notwithstanding the dignity and excellency of their nature, in strict justice, and awful severity, without any mercy, inflicted due punishment on them; wherefore it cannot be thought that false teachers, who, as they, abide not in the truth, but deny and oppose it, should escape the vengeance of God, for they will not.

"but cast them down to hell"~In what sense are we to understand the word hell as used by Peter? It cannot be understood as the lake of fire, for that is after the judgment~for which they are reserved for...which is to come, as is evident by even the angles themselves:

Matthew 8:29

"And behold they cried out saying, What have we to do with thee Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"

They know that there is a day appointed for them to be judge and then cast into the lake of fire, or into the deep, as used by Mark and Luke.

Also, the world is full of evil spirits as is evident by many scriptures in the NT, and in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Hell in this scripture is explain to us by Peter as he said these words:

"and delivered them into chains of darkness"~When they left their first estate, by sinning, God Almighty delivered them into chains of darkness~which means their sins left them under the guilt of sin, which is the power of darkness, and in black despair; shutting them up in unbelief, impenitence, and hardness of mind; being holden with the cords of their sins, and in the most dreadful state of bondage and captivity to their lusts, in just judgment on them; and in the most miserable and uncomfortable condition, being driven from the realms of light, deprived of the face and presence of God, in the utmost horror and trembling, and fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation to consume them; and in utter darkness, without the least glimmering of light, joy, peace, and comfort; and where there is nothing but weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and being also under the restraints of the power and providence of God, and not able to stir or move, or do anything without divine permission; and being likewise, by the everlasting, unalterable, and inscrutable purposes and decrees of God, appointed to everlasting wrath and destruction; by which they are consigned and bound over to it, and held fast, that they cannot escape it! They are there~

"to be reserved unto judgment"~And judge they shall be! By Jesus Christ and his saints. This is the prison of hell in which they are now suffering under, there waiting for that great day of the wrath of Almighty God. This hell, they will never escape from, they are forever under this chains of darkness and deception in which they are now living under. Their final abode will be destruction in the lake of fire and brimstone.

So, my question to you is, does God love the fallen angels, in any sense whatsoever? I say affirmatively..... no. He loves only the elect angels.

 

[brightfame52]

@TMSO

Gods Love is limited to the Elect, you cant see it.

It is a myth that that love saves. It does not.

False, Gods Love does save Eph 2:4-5

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved )
Rev 1:5-6
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I dont believe you understand the Love of God

 

[TMSO]

I'll only say this for now~Nothing but the Lord Jesus Christ is the means of our salvation from sin and condemnation There are means that are necessary to the revealing and enjoying the comfort of it, as the Holy Spirit and ministers to reveal it and faith to receive it; also, there be fruits and effects of the love of God, as faith, love, and obedience to Christ…yet these are no means of our salvation.

The gospel in a nutshell is found here:

Galatians 2:16

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

and here:

Romans 5:19​

“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

You aren't going to find disagreement here. There are other things involved in salvation, but they are part of the process, not something anyone "exercises" or "works" to achieve. Regeneration (to understand the message), hearing the message, responding/reacting to the message, the radical transformation of the mind by the understanding of the truth of the gospel, a broken and contrite spirit before God, etc. None of that is the gospel, but all have a part in salvation. They aren't works, but a reaction to God's work on the person.

 

[TMSO]

Sorry, it took me a couple of days to get to this.

I agree with your understanding of Luke 14:26 ~ not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is commanded by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in:

Matthew 10:37​

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

But, I must ask~what does this have to do with God's love being for all without exception?

It is not easy to follow your reasoning, though I'm trying hard to do so.

We are talking about God loving or hating before he created anyone, or anything, before they had done good or evil. Through his infinite foreknowledge he knew that if he did not have an election of grace, none would have ever come to have a relationship with God on their own~impossible. Knowing this truth, God could only love those whom he knew would be just as holy as he is, by sending his Son to be their surety~so grace and mercy were given to his elect from the foundation of the world. That's the only way possible for God loved and fellowship with men in the OT before Christ came and died for them~eternally he love them...... God considered them holy by the doctrine of Imputation done for the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8​

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

2nd Timothy 1:9​

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”


In this manner God can love (those who are of the very elect) and hates his enemies whom he has not chosen. The love and hate doctrine must be address from this perspective. I know of no other way of properly addressing this subject.


Well it was, not sure why you think otherwise.

Okay, I agree with this, which is going against your first sentence.

Here is were you go wrong~for it was based on God's foreknowledge of knowing that if he did not have an election of grace, then NONE would have EVER come on their OWN! If this is not so, then where does this scripture fit into the equation, or I should say the doctrine of love and hate?

1st Peter 1:2​

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”

God definitely elected based on his foreknowledge~and that know
ledge was not our good works before hand, for the scriptures rejects that false doctrine many times over. His foreknowledge is based upon him knowing the end from the beginning~knowing that if he did not have an election by grace, none would have ever been saved from sin and condemnation on their own, impossible.


That's your doctrine, not God's. God in his foreknowledge knew man would lose that image as soon as when he left Adam and Eve to themselves. Remember, God love and hate before he even created man knowing what man would do. Does God have any love for the fallen angels that sinned? for the Devil? They were created higher than man? The image of God consist in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, The fallen angles have been cast down to hell into chains of darkness!

Let me stop and make another quick post on 2nd Peter 2:4:

All of this is to explain, God has a love for humanity, a group. That love is not the same as the love God has for believers. Why? His creation are His children in a creator/created sense. The work of His hands. He cares for it, nurtures it, but it is an impersonal love. The love for believers, is a love that can be understood through Ephesians 1. A love for His adopted children who are a part of His family, and have a part in the inheritance of the kingdom through Christ. This is a completely different love, and is personal. And further backing up Ephesians 1 is that we love God (believers love God) because He first had this personal love for His children. Not after we were saved. The love existed before we were even born. And it wasn't based on merit, but based on God choosing to adopt some of His created beings (humanity) as His children.

Consider this about the hate spoken of for Esau. God does not send the sinner to hell because he hates them. He sends them to hell because they have offended him. They are sinners, and God hates sin and sin cannot abide in His presence. The hate for Esau is further defined in God saying that Esau could not/would not find repentance even though he sought it with tears. While it is stated in this manner, it is understood that Esau did not seek with all his heart. It did not rise above what he had done. God will not accept such heartless repentance. So it is the idea we see with Jesus speaking about hating everyone. It isn't the same as we define hate. God's hate doesn't fit our definition of hate. There is more to it then we can understand.

The universal love God has for humanity, I will say each and every individual just to remind that everyone makes up this corporate group, is IMPERSONAL. As common grace is IMPERSONAL. Everything changes once we start talking about individuals. That is when love is personal. And that love is reserved for God's elect. In that light, any "love" God has for the rest of the individuals of mankind appears to be/is hate. The rich and wicked can and do prosper... because of the universal impersonal love God has for the corporate group of humanity. It has no effect on their eternity. They will pay for what they have done, and their will not be one shred of mercy shown outside of that which is established by how God sees sin. (Remembering how God said that the judgment would be easier for some, based on what they have heard/known/seen. Punished...absolutely. The level/amount of punishment appears to derive from how much they know of God, how much of the truth they have heard and are accountable for, and their reaction to the truth they have/had. It makes things interesting for me, because it makes it seem the punishment may be more cognitive based, then physically based. That is, those who know what they missed out on, will suffer horribly, while those who don't know anything won't suffer to the same degree. They are still in torment, but nothing compared to those who spat on, and openly rejected known truth. They will stand expecting God to let them in, and will have the door shut in their faces. They will be the one's in the outer darkness gnashing their teeth and weeping, knowing what they have rejected, and finally facing that. Utter agony having known, tasted of God's blessings, and finally being shut out of it completely.

 

[TMSO]

@TMSO





False, Gods Love does save Eph 2:4-5

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved )
Rev 1:5-6
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I dont believe you understand the Love of God

I don't believe you defined the love. Is it the universal love God had for the world, or the personal love God had for those ordained to the adoption of children through Jesus Christ? DEFINE THE LOVE. The love I spoke of that doesn't save is the universal impersonal love God has for His created. For that group of humanity, which does not consider the individual. That love does not save. All it does is provide the common grace a creator would pour out on his created to take care of them. Such as the father feeds the birds of the air, and clothes the lilies of the field.

 

[JIM]

Why are you making my case for me? for He makes... (until the end) speaks to a common grace, and corporal action. I speak of a corporal love when I say universal. God loves humanity... which is why He bothered to save ANY of us. If He hated humanity (corporal/universal), Jesus would have never come. He has an upper level of love for His creation. The flowers of the field are clothed, the birds of the air are fed, just who are we to them? Don't worry/be anxious for anything. He loves the work of His hands. He doesn't hate the work of His hands, His creation. He looked at it all and said it was good. When it became corrupt, He didn't lose His love for creation, but had a plan to redeem it. Not all of it, but the fact that He decided any of it was salvageable shows love. (Yes it is much more complicated then that, however, I am speaking of the simple love from which common grace flows.)

So you are saying that Matthew 5:44-45 is saying that God requires only a corporal love for our enemies, not any individual love for our enemies. How, exactly, does one accomplish that? I don't think that is what Jesus was saying at all.

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 7 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 8 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If God loves only the children of God, is He, in Jesus' words here, perfect?

 

[TMSO]

So you are saying that Matthew 5:44-45 is saying that God requires only a corporal love for our enemies, not any individual love for our enemies. How, exactly, does one accomplish that? I don't think that is what Jesus was saying at all.

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 7 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 8 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If God loves only the children of God, is He, in Jesus' words here, perfect?

I meant corporate love above, and I speak of God's love, not of our love. Notice how everything I wrote above has to do with God's universal love for His creation. How does that speak to how we love? The who argument is because those I am arguing with do not believe God has a corporate love for His creation. He hates what He made with His hands, but has love for certain individuals. No love. No care. No provision for the needs of any of His creation because He hates it.

 

[makesends]

All of this is to explain, God has a love for humanity, a group. That love is not the same as the love God has for believers. Why? His creation are His children in a creator/created sense. The work of His hands. He cares for it, nurtures it, but it is an impersonal love. The love for believers, is a love that can be understood through Ephesians 1. A love for His adopted children who are a part of His family, and have a part in the inheritance of the kingdom through Christ. This is a completely different love, and is personal. And further backing up Ephesians 1 is that we love God (believers love God) because He first had this personal love for His children. Not after we were saved. The love existed before we were even born. And it wasn't based on merit, but based on God choosing to adopt some of His created beings (humanity) as His children.

Consider this about the hate spoken of for Esau. God does not send the sinner to hell because he hates them. He sends them to hell because they have offended him. They are sinners, and God hates sin and sin cannot abide in His presence. The hate for Esau is further defined in God saying that Esau could not/would not find repentance even though he sought it with tears. While it is stated in this manner, it is understood that Esau did not seek with all his heart. It did not rise above what he had done. God will not accept such heartless repentance. So it is the idea we see with Jesus speaking about hating everyone. It isn't the same as we define hate. God's hate doesn't fit our definition of hate. There is more to it then we can understand.

The universal love God has for humanity, I will say each and every individual just to remind that everyone makes up this corporate group, is IMPERSONAL. As common grace is IMPERSONAL. Everything changes once we start talking about individuals. That is when love is personal. And that love is reserved for God's elect. In that light, any "love" God has for the rest of the individuals of mankind appears to be/is hate. The rich and wicked can and do prosper... because of the universal impersonal love God has for the corporate group of humanity. It has no effect on their eternity. They will pay for what they have done, and their will not be one shred of mercy shown outside of that which is established by how God sees sin. (Remembering how God said that the judgment would be easier for some, based on what they have heard/known/seen. Punished...absolutely. The level/amount of punishment appears to derive from how much they know of God, how much of the truth they have heard and are accountable for, and their reaction to the truth they have/had. It makes things interesting for me, because it makes it seem the punishment may be more cognitive based, then physically based. That is, those who know what they missed out on, will suffer horribly, while those who don't know anything won't suffer to the same degree. They are still in torment, but nothing compared to those who spat on, and openly rejected known truth. They will stand expecting God to let them in, and will have the door shut in their faces. They will be the one's in the outer darkness gnashing their teeth and weeping, knowing what they have rejected, and finally facing that. Utter agony having known, tasted of God's blessings, and finally being shut out of it completely.

You've done an excellent job dealing with something that most Reformed/Calvinists don't know how to express —the difference in God's love for the two groups, though I would be careful to object to the notion that his love for the unsaved is "impersonal". But I understand and appreciate why you put it that way, and I don't know how I could do any better. But I think it would be good to say that "this is a way to look at it, for the sake of understanding/demonstrating the difference." What you say does explain some of the problems that self-deterministic minds object to, but, (and I think you would agree), it is a long way from giving the whole story. It is a construction that works, and helps to think, but it is only that, no?

 

[brightfame52]

@TMSO

I don't believe you defined the love.

Well guess what ? I believe I did, which makes it appear you dont understand Gods Love.

 

[brightfame52]

He called or named all without exception!

And if God called [named] all without exception, Them, He Justified all without exception.

Interesting also about the word called here in vs 30, its not the same word in vs 28 where the word for call is klētos which means:


called, invited (to a banquet)

a) invited (by God in the proclamation of the Gospel) to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ

This word means more of an invite or a Divine summons

The word for called in vs 30 is the word kaleō which means:


to call

a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice

b) to invite

2) to call i.e. to name, by name

a) to give a name to

1) to receive the name of, receive as a name

2) to give some name to one, call his name

It means to call by Name, or name someone, for instance here Matt 1:21

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

So this call refers to God naming those that are His. Remember in John 10:

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

So the called in Rom 8:30 is the naming of the Sheep, and so as we continue to look at those God Loved, if its all mankind without exception, then all mankind without exception has been named, all are His Sheep, His own Sheep. If that is True, then we have serious problems with what Jesus said to some of the unbelieving jews of His day, notice John 10:26

26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Also, we have a problem with Jesus statement here in Matt 7:23

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This would be a flat out lie and contradiction if Jesus Loved them, and they were His Sheep once, because its written here John 10:14

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

So if Christ Loved them, He knew them as His Sheep, and that would make Christ a Liar if He states to them in Matt 7:23 He NEVER KNEW THEM !

All this is the ramifications of insisting that God,and the Lord Jesus Christ loved all mankind without exception, the scriptures lead to this conclusion ! 2