God does not love all mankind

You make quite the leaps.

 

Except in Romans 9 Paul takes away human ability (good or evil), as a condition for election, by saying Jacob was chosen before any conditions were met.

Romans 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

 

Empty words without showing how. Do you have kids? Explain to me how you can love your children (with love being a perfect attribute of God) more than God (who is love) can....and if you act as God does by hating someone, even His enemy, you are a murderer in His eyes. Leap with me...

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

How is stating God hated Esau (absence of love) not compared to what the pagans and tax collectors (sinners) did?

 

The really sad fact is that you use this same scripture to prove the most pitiful doctrine I ever heard of. Your own particular election.:laugh: Anyone who can read with out listening to your mouth can see what a farce your claim really is.


Isn't it wonderful the scriptures them selves prove your theories wrong.
MB

 

The Sidekick wouldn't know absolute truth if it bit him in the rear end.

Curious, Sidekick...have you ever pointed your "flock" to the BB? I'm sure they would LOVE to see the real you.

 

I simply posted the definitions of the original words and you made the leap of claiming I believe things that I didn't say nor did I imply them. Your leaps are intellectually dishonest...therefore, you can leap alone. :wavey:

 

Hmmm... you said

Much more than simply the definition of the original words, no? Wouldn't be so quick to throw around the intellectually dishonest label when you appear to employ just that.

Your silence in regards to my points are deafening.

 

I'm with you on that, you have been misrepresented, and you make a wise decision above.

- Peace

 

I think there are two opposite errors here:

ERROR 1: "God does not hate anyone." ie..."God loves the sinner and hates the sin." This statement is nowhere in the bible! It comes from pagan thought. There are clearly places in the bible where God Hates:

-Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"


ERROR 2: "God does not love all people."
We should also note that God also loves those he hates:
-John 3:16 - (no need to quote that one) [if we need to discuss if "the world" includes unbelievers, we can, but hopefully the following 2 verses will make that discussion unnecessary)
-2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (Some kind of care, which could be defined as "love" is obviously shown here.)
-Matt. 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
-->(God loves his enemies, and expresses this by giving them rain and sun...sometimes called common grace)

Now...He Does NOT Love everyone the same way. He does not love those who have rejected him in the same way he loves those who have received him.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Sure winman....we never saw it before:thumbs:

Spurgeon was totally unaware of this pathetic misunderstanding of the text...trying to avoid the clear teaching...like right here!

 

I would ask this: "How can one state that God did NOT hate Esau without flatly contradicting what God's word says?"

 

I've spoken to a Jewish man who speaks original Aramaic about this passage and he laughed at how Calvinists interpret it. He said that those who understand the original language and the usage of the word "hate: in context with his elective choice would NEVER come to this conclusion. I agree with him for these reasons:

1. Paul begins the chapter expresses extraordinary love for his fellow countrymen who are being hardened in their rebellion, so unless you believe that Paul, writing under inspiration of the Spirit, is more loving than the God who is inspiring him then you can't come to that conclusion.

2. In the original language there are other examples of love/hate being representative of choosing one over another. i.e."...you must hate your mother and father..." Which clearly means you choose God OVER even your own parents, just as Jacob, and his posterity, were chosen OVER Esau, and his posterity, for the noble purpose of bringing redemption.

3. Even Paul refers to them being 'nations' in her womb prior to drawing this comparison, so it is not a stretch to understand his point from a corporate standpoint of using one nation for noble purposes and the other for common use, rather than the idea that God irresistibly saving one and not the other.

 

The choice of Jacob over Esau is being compared to God's perceived choice to save one individual (elect) over another (reprobate).

But may I suggest for consideration that the choice is more likely compared to God's choice of Paul over Gamaliel (his Rabbi - or some other random unknown Pharisee of that day). Paul was chosen for the noble purpose of apostleship and bringing the message of divine redemption to the world (not unlike the purpose of God's choice of Israel over other nations, because we know individuals of other nations were saved, but they weren't chosen for the noble purpose of bringing redemption to rest of the world as was Israel).

Why was Paul, a Jew, chosen over Gamaliel, another Jew of 'higher esteem,' for this noble purpose? Why was Gamaliel left for 'common use?' Was Paul more righteous or deserving? NO. He was chosen so that God's purpose in electing Israel would be fulfilled and the message of redemption would come through Israel.

And do we know Gamaliel was lost? Could he have been provoked by envy and saved (Rm 11:14)? Possibly. But that doesn't change the fact that Paul was chosen for noble purposes while other Pharisees were left in their blind and hardened condition, left protesting, "Why has God made me like this?"

 

I believe I already addressed that by comparing Bible to Bible (Matt. 10:37, Luke 14:26)

 

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Wouldn't the other option include hate not meaning the absence of love (as in hating our father or mother)?

 

Points not addressed as of yet...

Can we love more than God?

We are not allowed to hate anyone even loving our own enemies, which God describes as a "perfect" love...yet He doesn't even uphold what He commands finite beings to do? Concerning love He is less than perfect?!?

Hating another is considered sin (murder).

If the passage in the OP is to be taken literal, why are we not free to hate (murder) our parents?

 

Some here need to understand there has been some disagreement on this particular question within the Reformed tradition:

[In his book,] "The Sovereignty of God," by A. W. Pink. Pink wrote, "God loves whom He chooses. He does not love everybody." He further argued that the word world in John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world...") "refers to the world of believers (God's elect), in contradistinction from 'the world of the ungodly.'"

[In contrast,] the mainstream of Reformed theologians have always affirmed the love of God for all sinners. John Calvin himself wrote regarding John 3:16, "[Two] points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish."

Calvin continues to explain the biblical balance that both the gospel invitation and "the world" that God loves are by no means limited to the elect alone. He also recognized that God's electing, saving love is uniquely bestowed on His chosen ones.

Those same truths, reflecting a biblical balance, have been vigorously defended by a host of Reformed stalwarts, including Thomas Boston, John Brown, Andrew Fuller, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, and many others. In no sense does belief in divine sovereignty rule out the love of God for all humanity. -(ref from John MacArthur)

 

Now that is "fair and balanced". ......and unafraid.

 

Oh no, he's Jewish, speaks original Aramaic, so he must be an authority, and he even laughed. That validates it. We're sunk.

Purely subjective logic here, with other intentions.

Seems Paul was Jewish himself and the context laughs at your interpretation.

For a guy always clamoring for "scholars" for proofs, you sure pull out subjective reasonings incessantly as your "proofs."

:thumbs:

 

ROFLMBO. So whose scholarship do we acknowledge, yours?