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.
It is refreshing to see someone dig into Scripture to see what it actually says, instead of parroting memorized interpretations of Scripture per a particular doctrine. I do agree with your interpretation and how you interpreted the Scriptures quoted.
I noticed in your post you repeatedly stated how much this doctrine bothers you. It has had the same effect on me, not at first, but as I dug deeper into it, it became apparent the followers of this doctrine are willing to grossly misinterpret Scripture and sacrifice the True Nature of God as revealed in Scripture in order to cling to their doctrine.
Tozer said something to the effect : 'When we define God other than He really is, we have set up a idol'
Thank you for this Awesome post, Saved. Thank God I'm not the only one who sees what's been happening here. Satan is a liar. He justifies the wicked and condemns the just. There are enemies of the cross of Christ everywhere. And , yes, we are to love our enemies but to tolerate wolves in sheeps clothing ? I think not! GOD IS LOVE. _____________________________ BTW---- I Love you, Saved.
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.
71 said:
'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.
James replies:
You have been SHOWN verses that SAY just that repeatedly!!!
71 continues:
This is how they can conclude that John 3:16 does not include the "world"
James replies:
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???
71 continues:
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'.
James replies:
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!
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.
71, if your interpretation of "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" offends NO ONE, then WHY did Paul say what he said above?????????????
You answer me, 71, I am tired of answering Questions.
YOU answer ME 71, and Twosparrows and PhillipJohn!!!
If your interpretation of "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" offends NO ONE, then WHY did Paul say what he said above?????????????
Two, I think where Calvinism really turned my stomach, beside the obvious error in their doctrine of who Christ died for and who God loves, and the attempt of James to pound that into our heads and hearts, is that James put an article on this forum which concluded with the following.. "We can say that common grace is Reformed, and in saying that we claim it as a biblical doctrine to be accepted and preached." It's one thing to believe something and quite another to claim it as something to be accepted and preached because someone outside of Scripture told them to. How on earth can anyone who believes that Christ did not die for all sinners, preach the Cross? How does one even attempt to lead another to Christ if the possibility exists that the Cross is of no effect for them? I can't wrap my mind around that concept. And this is something to be accepted and preached? *gag*
Paul very simply said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." - 1 Corinthians 1:17
I have no problem preaching Christ crucified. I have no problem telling a lost soul that God loved them so very much that He sent His Son as a sacrifice to be the reconciliation between Himself and that person. I have no problem showing a person Scripture after Scripture that simply says Christ is the Savior of the World. It doesn't even require explanation, whereas for the Calvanist, they have to explain what those Scriptures DON'T mean. What they do with that message is between them and God, but there is no way I am going to think that there is half truth to what I share, or to what those Scriptures say.
Chevy, you said, "And , yes, we are to love our enemies..." Don't you find it odd that we are commanded to love our enemies, yet God doesn't keep the same command in Himself, in that Calvanists will lead you to believe that He hates His enemies, which are the very ones He created just so He could hate them? And Jesus, God in the flesh, walking among those who hated Him, who put Him to death, never once, in all of Scripture, said He "hated" a soul. Not once. He looked on those enemies who crucified Him and asked the Father to forgive them. So where does one get off thinking they can declare as truth that God hates His enemies and to prove it He will create living souls to hate? And then to prove God loves, He will create souls to love? No, God proved His love. Not in the souls He created, but in the Sacrifice He gave. If one were to walk up to you and ask to show them proof of God's love in Scripture, how would you answer them? No doubt you would show them verse after verse that pointed to the Cross. I wonder how the Calvanist would answer that.
Gee James.. either I struck a nerve or you are not very patient with those who would argue your doctrine. No need to yell and !!!!!! either.
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any] thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. - Ecclesiastes 5:2
Believers, believe the word of God, not the word of man.
The bible does not teach:
Total inability
Total depravity
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints
James by the way the bible tells specifically how one is born again, and it is not regeneration, then the new birth. for you see every point of Calvinism denys these two laws.
The law of sowing and reaping
The law of faith.
James just so you will know God does not hate anyone,
