Who does God Love?!

No wonder you are having trouble. The English word is love.

Love is love man whatever type it is. If it is not love it fails. Love never fails. Hell is a failure of love in your view but no you would have Him love them as He places those in Hell who He loves.

You will get nowhere with your attempt to make God's love for His Children suspect.

"Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" That is scripture mate.

PS 26:5 I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked. God hates.

john.

 

So you're saying that Jesus and Peter were talking about the same thing in their dialogue in Acts 17:11?

Sorry, but while I agape you, don't phileo you or eros you.

John 3:16. That's scripture mate. If you say that God doesn't love all, then you're calling God a liar.

 

Hello Johnv.

Do you love me Peter---Yes I do. End of story.

Doesn't matter what type of love you mean love is love. It either complies with: 1CO 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails... Or it is not love.

I know it is scripture and I know it is being misapplied by you.

john.

 

You've got is SOOOOO wrong.

Jesus askes Peter, "do you agape (love without condition) me?" and Peter replies "I phileo (care for you like a brother) you. Jesus asks again with agape, and Peter, a bit confused, replies with phileo. Finally, Jesus meets Peter at a level which Peter can understand. Jesus finally asks "Peter, do you [/i]phileo[/i] you, to which peter replies in the affirmative also using phileo.

Reading this dialogue in English alone takes away from that context, because in English, there is only one word for love, while in the Greek, there are several. One must comprehend the Greek here, or the meaning is lost. The fact that you did not recognize the context of the dialogue is proof of that.

Dude, if I expressed eros for you, I'd be a homosexual.

1Cor is referring to agape (unconditional love) only. You pervert scripture by implying that 1Cor can be read to mean "Eros is patient, eros is kind".

Liar. It's clear that you will believe your own misconception about scripture instead of believing what scripture really says and means. You cannot get around that scriptural fact that God loves all. You cannot get around the fact that agape, phileo etc are not interchangeable. You cannot get around the fact that GOd hating Esau does not mean that God withheld his love from Esau. Anything other these is a lie and a perversion of scripture. In order for your assertion to hold water, we must therefore deny the believe that scripture is God-breathed, because scripture does not say that in English.

 

Hello Johnv.

No you wouldn't you would be on your back with a broken nose. Because I would not want you to express sexual love inappropriately.
Eros is a part of love not a seperate thing. Your love has failed if you do so because you would be trying to get me to break God's law and that is death and that is not love. And that is cool.

That's what you say.

Of course I believe my own misconceptions don't you, or have you none?

Well He has a funny way of showing doesn't He? He created people to chuck into Hell. He knew before the creation that Judas was heading there as Judas was doomed. He still created Him 'in love' was it?

No and black is white and wrong is right and good is bad and bad is good and up is down and down is up.

Look Johnv there is no persausion that can make me disbelieve: "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated" So it is me with the perversion and lies because I believe the words from the book and repeat them?
You have failed to show one bible translation that agrees with you. Can you show me a paraphrased bible that has: "Jacob I loved, Esau I loved less"

PS 26:5 I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked. God hates evil doers.

john.

 

Which refutes your contention that love is love.

When I find that something I believed was in error, I revise my belief. You, otoh, have demonstrated that you will prefer to adhere to something in error rather than admit to error on your part.

No.

More nonsense from you. Typical.

You insert into that verse your own perception that God withheld his love from Esau. Where in that verse, or anywhere in scripture, does it say that? It doesn't. For you to claim that God withheld his love from Esau, or withholds his love from anyone, you would be adding to scripture. That's what we call false doctrine.

No translation anywhere says that God withheld his love from Esau. None. Show me one.

No translation says that God withholds his lvoe from anyone. None. Show me one.

You have failed to provide any support that "hate" means the withholding of love.

 

After viewing through these pages, it again becomes apparent, as I have known fro 20 years, that Calvinism is an unScriptural, sick blasphemy. It is a doctrine from Hell itself. It is the most wicked slander upon God ever uttered by depraved man.

 

Hi ya Hansola


I take that you do not agree....or am i missing sometning??

 

quote:JohnP said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No and black is white and wrong is right and good is bad and bad is good and up is down and down is up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that is priceless. Here we see the typical "end game" for JohnP long after his arguments have run aground -- he simply continues to draw out the discussion adding pointless remark to pointless remark (AS IF it is a response) -- but in fact he has quit thinking about the problem "a long time ago" as his own difficulties became too many and too complex to solve.

And here we see JohnV making note of that "stopping point for JohnP". It is key to observe that JohnP ususally reaches his "stopping" point about 2 or 3 exchanges into any difficult subject where his views are challenged - after that he is simply trying to draw emotion from his "mark".

But those first 2 or 3 exchanges can be very "rich" in valuable "confessions" from a Calvinist!

Record 'em.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello Bob.

No I stopped talking to the problem that's all.

Getting through was a problem to great to solve I'm waiting.

john.