I asked James the following question...Does God love all of mankind or just those He has set aside for salvation? James replied -
"God shows some love to all, and all love to some. That is accurate according to what we see in life, and in Scripture. But NO, God does NOT love everyone the way He loves His chosen people. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", Remember? So, the answer you were looking for is NO."
I'm beginning to believe that the Calvanist, in order to cling to their doctrine of selective or elect only salvation, must rely on the belief that God does not love all mankind, therefore He must "hate" those who will not become elect. This is how they can conclude that John 3:16 does not include the "world" and "whosoever" in relation to "God so loved...." I'm also seeing Romans 9:13 being used as the cornerstone of this doctrine as if it somehow seals their argument that God does not love all of mankind..."As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Personally, I believe this is a gross misinterpretation of Scripture, and I'm not sure where to even start in order to argue such a doctrine that believes 'God hates'.
Jesus told us in 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." Was Jesus really telling us to "hate" our parents, siblings and children? The same word "hate" used in Luke 14 is that used in Romans 9:13. No, Jesus wasn't telling us to "hate" them as He gave us the command to - "Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." So what is the Lord telling us? He is telling us that, "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." I believe the word "hate" as used in Romans 9:13 and Luke 14:26 is not defined as the hate that would be opposite of love. The passage in Luke 14 is simply telling us to not put our family [or anyone] before the Lord. It doesn't mean to "hate" them, as it is also written, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" And it's my belief that God did not hate Esau as the Calvanist would have you believe in order to push their doctrine, but that God preferred Jacob over Esau. God had told Isaac that the great nation Israel was to come through Jacob, not Esau. And it would be in Jacob�s seed [not Esau's] to which the Messiah would come. Furthermore, if you read Malachi 1, from which Paul pulled his verse in Romans 9:13, Jacob is Israel and Esau is Edom. They are represented in nations. And God does show His anger and hatred for nations in that the sin that is evident in them. It doesn't mean He hates the individuals of those nations no more than He hates the individuals of Israel, yet hates the sin therein as we see time and again throughout Scripture. But nowhere do I find God displaying any hatred toward Esau [the individual]. There is simply no indication anywhere in the narrative of Esau's life that gives any impression that God "hated" him.
It really gets on my last nerve when a believer holds to a doctrine and attempts to push it, that believes "God is love" only to "the elect". Mark 10:21 gives an account of a rich young ruler that chose to walk away from Christ. He rejected Christ. But what did Jesus do? "Jesus beholding him loved him". Jesus loved him, this person who was Hell bound for rejecting to follow Him. If you ask me, this is more in line with a God who wishes all to come to salvation, invites even those who will reject the offer, and loves them regardless their decision, instead of a God that loves only the "elect" or those He has created for salvation, while having no love for those bound for Hell.
It also bothers me to no end when a doctrine is pushed that believes Christ died for only a select amount and refuses the Scriptures that refer to Him as the Savior of the World. As I've said before, it cheapens the Cross and His death. It makes it of no effect to some. I don't even know how a person with this belief can witness. How they can share the "Good News", the Gospel, Christ crucified. True, we don't know who will accept Jesus and who won't, but how can the Calvanist tell a person that Christ died for them if they [the person they are talking to] turn out to be not of the "elect"? They just fed the non-believing sinner the biggest religious lie ever, because Christ did not die for them, but only for those who will accept His sacrifice. So, would God have them lie about His Son?
How do you do it, James? Do you preach the Cross? Even knowing that you might be preaching to one who turns out to be "non-elect", in which case your preaching of the Cross is a lie where they are concerned, because Christ really didn't die for 'them'? How do you testify of the love of God, knowing that the one you are speaking to is possibly one who is not "elect", thereby again, the possibility of lying to them that God is love, because God only loves His "elect"? Where is your Gospel in this?
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom FOR ALL, to be testified in due time. - 1 Timothy 2:5,6
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. - Luke 9:56
Jesus rebuked James and John for wanting to 'consume' those who would not receive Him, saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." The Calvinist would do well to take heed and not be so willing to believe that Christ did not die for all sinners, whether they accept Him or not.
You treat others like children and expect to be treated like a adult?
I happen to love Romans 9 and John 6. What I hate is your gross misinterpretation of them according to your doctrine.
Romans,9:13 ~ " Jacob (Scripture) I loved, but Esau (misinterpretation) I hated"
Sorry, I know you are waiting for a response to a question, however your poor attitude and accusatory remarks have sidetracked me.
I'll have to reread your post and get back to you.
Btw, is this the fruit of Calvinism in keeping with the Synod of Dort when Calvinists killed and persecuted Christians? Didn't the Catholic church do the same thing? Remember what I posted about the Reformed church being a reformed Catholic church within Protestantism? Hmmm...
Okay James... you said - "First off, the Title of this thread is a bit childish, and misleading. What you REALLY mean is, "God either loves every person who ever lived, no matter how evil, or God is not love at all." That is CHILDISH, and contradicts the nature of God. All one has to do is think of God loving Hitler, or Stalin, or any other supremely evil person, and that should force you to grow up a bit."
First, it matters not what anyone thinks of the title of this thread, but if it is misleading to anyone, I do apologize. And what I really mean is that either God is love or He is not love. Either He loves or He doesn't love. His love is not flippant. Your view shows Him to love souls and hate souls. How does God declare He is love and yet you declare He is hate when it comes to certain of His creation? Sure, you throw Scripture around to 'prove' your point, but you do so without realizing that you are changing the nature of God. Nowhere does Scripture say "I am the God of hate". But Scripture will tell you that "God is love". You are reforming what is written to satisfy your doctrine. You make the simple, complex. When Scripture says God so loved the world, it simply means that God loves the world, meaning the souls therein. When Scripture says Christ is the Savior of the World, it simply means just that. You turn it into a complex and confusing mess. As to God loving Hitler, et al, yep, He loved them. He also loved Paul who had a list of atrocities under his belt. Sin is sin, yes? And I would even go so far as to say had Hitler or Stalin repented of their atrocities and accepted Christ, God would not have turned a deaf ear.
James wrote -"Well, tell us 71, does John 3:16 mean "for God so loved the planet"??? I am sure some liberal will take that interpretation soon. It means "People from all over the world". Not just Jerusalem. Before Jesus came, one HAD to give sacrifices at the Temple, which means you had to live near the temple. SUDDENLY, God was going to SAVE whosoever would believe in Jesus, and that meant you could live anywhere in the WORLD. TRUE OR FALSE 71???"
I'm not quite sure what your 'true or false' question is asking, but John 3:16 means exactly what is written. God so loved the world, the world being the inhabitants of the earth. If it were referring to anything different, then John could have simply said God so loved His elect. Think about it. But no, God chose to have the "world", the inhabitants of the earth included in His love.
James wrote - "You want the word "whosoever" to mean "every person has the ability" ,and the FACT is, that is NOT the definition of the word. CHECK THE DICTIONARY!"
Okay. "Whosoever" = "Whoever" = : whatever person : no matter who �used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive - Merriam-Webster Maybe you use a different dictionary with a different definition for whosoever/whoever?
Would you rather that we rewrite the verse to say, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that "whatever person, no matter who" that believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life? Or God so loved the inhabitants of the earth, that whatever person, no matter who, that believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Sounds like an amplified version, but I can buy into that. No matter which definition you use, it still says the same thing. God loves mankind, so much so, that whoever believes in His Son, will not perish but have everlasting life. There is no need to say what it "doesn't mean". Unless you're a Calvinist.
James wrote - "Your problem with refusing to ACCEPT Romans 9 AND John 6, and every other verse throughout Scripture is something you should deal with. You see, you don't like Romans 9. And here is my question to you, if you are demanding it is only the interpretation given by Christians who are not Arminian. 1. the apostle Paul KNEW some would object!! He even said so!! AND YOU ARE REJECTING IT!!! Here is what He wrote TO YOU 71, you say "the Calvinist interpretation makes God unjust" Well read Paul's word TO YOU:
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God�s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.
Hmmm... I don't think I wrote, "the Calvinist interpretation makes God unjust", but whatever. I am not rejecting what Paul wrote. I am rejecting your interpretation of what Paul wrote in order to hang your doctrine. The passage Paul wrote has nothing to do with who God loves or doesn't love. I'll just paste what I wrote in an earlier thread about Romans 9 - "Romans 9 is about Israel and the problem[s] associated with her condition [she missed her Messiah] and her position in God [because of her rejection] along with the assurance of our position in God [since her rejection]." God chose Israel. She is His true 'elect'. His first 'elect'. Israel rejected Christ. So God went to the Gentiles. It was planned from the beginning, as God knew Israel would reject her Messiah, and Isaiah wrote about this. It does not mean or prove that God loves some and hates others. Or that God loves only the "elect" and hates the "non-elect". What is does show is God's love in that He chose another people to offer His gift of salvation through His Son to when His first choice turned their backs on it.
James wrote - "71, if your interpretation of "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" offends NO ONE, then WHY did Paul say what he said above?????????????" Huh??? I don't even understand what you're asking here. In any event, Paul pulled that verse from Malachi 1. Read it and then tell me that God "hated" the person Esau. In fact, read about Esau in Genesis and show me where God displayed His hatred against Esau.
James wrote - "You answer me, 71, I am tired of answering Questions." Is that because you are tired of trying to defend your position or because you can't find any Calvanist writings that answer the questions asked of you in this forum?
James wrote [in reply to my question, How on earth can anyone who believes that Christ did not die for all sinners, preach the Cross?], "Because GOD SAID TO. Because GOD CHOSE the "foolishness of preaching".
Okay, I can agree that we are to preach the Cross, but how can you preach it with confidence, knowing that there are those that you will most likely preach to that are created for Hell, making the Cross of no effect to them? In other words, and to borrow a TwoSparrows dialogue type example...
James to the Sinner - God loves you. Christ died for you, and wants to have a relationship with you. He wants to save you from your sin and the eternal damnation of your sinful state.
God in Heaven - James doesn't know this, but he is witnessing to one of my created for Hell souls. I don't love this sinner. He is not one of my elect. Christ did not die for this sinner.
Me - Doesn't that make James a liar? Saying God loves this sinner, that Christ died for this sinner, when in all actuality He didn't? That ain't the "Gospel Truth". What's up with that?
James wrote - "Let me get this straight.....YOU think that EVERY TIME you present the gospel to someone they WILL accept Jesus???? So, I am guessing ALL of your relatives and loved ones, and friends have accepted Jesus, and you can see the fruit of the Spirit in their lives?"
To answer your first question, no. But I do know that I speak the truth concerning the Gospel, in that when I preach the Cross, it is for every sinner on the face of this planet that God puts in my path to share the Good News with. As to your second question, no again. I think you're going overboard and getting extreme to something so simple. I pray that all my relatives, loved ones and friends will accept Jesus. And I pray with confidence that if any of them call on the name of Jesus, they will be saved. I am confident that the Cross I preach has the power to save, and I don't have to question whether they are "elect" or not.
Google Synod of Dort persecution of Christians. The very first action of the followers of Calvinism killed and persecuted Christians. This is a case of classic spiritual hereditary.
Chevy, I have no idea why James has to YELL, but I have this imaginative vision that if we were all in a room in real life, the veins in James neck would be distended due to yelling his argument.
Two, I might have to look at that Synod of Dort persecution of Christians stuff you're mentioning. However, I don't want to place James among them and end up with a biased attitude, so maybe I'll just pass it by. I do agree though that James does adopt a "poor attitude and accusatory remarks" when replying to some of the posts here, even talking down to us as if we were somewhere beneath him.
Oh really? Some of the kindest, most loving and godly people I know happen to adhere to the doctrines of grace. My own father and best friend are just two of them.
I'd watch out what you say before labeling people, PJ. Good and bad attitudes cut across any denominational line.
The God of the Bible is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of the Arminian is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?
