For God so loved the world

KJB,
Good explanation, but had God not sent Jesus to the world, and Jesus' message to the world, to all mankind is that, "if you believe in me you shall have everlasting life", there would have been no atonement for sin that satisfied God the Father, and no man would receive everlasting life. God's love for mankind would not have been demonstrated and those that God loves (those with Faith in him) could not be saved.

It was God's gift to the world, Jesus, who through atoning for sin, made it possible for the "whosoever's" of John 3:16 to have everlasting life through Faith Alone. It was in God's Love Gift to mankind, Jesus' life, that God demonstrated his love for mankind generally speaking.

Yes I acknowledge that there are exceptions here as there are in ALL aspects of life. But Generally God loves ALL mankind. And, NO, atonement does not save all mankind, and indeed does not save even one man. All it did was remove the death penalty of sin from mankind...ALL mankind. So Revelation 20:14,15 rings true because there is no death penalty for sinners, only for unbelievers, those whose names are not found in the book of life.

 

are there any exceptions to this statement?

 

EXCELLENT post KJB. Well said!

 

KJB,
What I don't understand is that you take one rather extreme example, dealing with two nations, to tell us that God treats the common man in the same way that he treated Jacob and Esau, the father's of nations.

Jesus was not sent to the heads of state, he was sent to the common man. And indeed scriptures tell us that the Gospel message was made simple to confound the wise. And that God raises up those who are rulers and kings.

Calvinism's doctrine of election and or soverignty of God, is based on a false premise by applying the events of Jacob and Esau, and those dealing with the Heads of state, to man in general.

 

are there any exceptions to this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]OK, what are ya gettin' at?

 

are there any exceptions to this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]OK, what are ya gettin' at? </font>[/QUOTE]You made an absolute statement that was self defeating.

Just like your other statement 'truth is relative' which means your statement may or may not be true.

 

There are many verses that SEEM to point to predestination; IE the will of man is mostly an illusion!

There are also many that point to man being the deciding factor in salvation/life; IE man decides whether to become a Christian or no, with minimal or no “interference” from God!

My problem, is those who choose either aspect of God and claim absolute knowledge of God’s meaning to the exclusion of everything contrary to that view!

Perhaps I’m just not educated in the dissection of God’s word enough to understand such a philosophy.

If I see an apparent conflict in my understanding of two “opposing” interpretations of the Word, I have enough sense to acknowledge that there is something lacking in my understanding, not that “I’m right and all other views are wrong”!

Some people’s egos are so big, though, that they will defend “to the death” their views and, in the process (whether subconsciously or no, I know not) call God a liar when supposedly contradicting scripture is offered!

I have my personal beliefs concerning these “questionable areas”, but I certainly do not consider myself an authority of my point of view and just discard those scriptures that SEEM to contradict MY PERSONAL BELIEF!

Those that do so (discard the “contradictory" scripture), do so challenging the authority of God IMNSHO, and are playing with spiritual fire!

It’s not a disaster or a shame to admit that your knowledge of the scripture is incomplete.

I can appreciate one holding a staunch view, but to be so dogmatic just shows either your pride, stubbornness, or being educated beyond your intelligence.

 

Keep in mind that not everyone agrees with your view of what the extremes are. The way most Calvinists see it:

Hyper Calvinism is on the far left
Calvinism is in the middle
Arminianism is on the far right

 

are there any exceptions to this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]OK, what are ya gettin' at? </font>[/QUOTE]You made an absolute statement that was self defeating.

Just like your other statement 'truth is relative' which means your statement may or may not be true. </font>[/QUOTE]Take it the way you will, you always do that anyway.

 

The text does not say "God COULD have loved the World".

The text does nto say "God CAN love some people in the world".

The text does not say "God might have loved all the People in the worlld if He had chosen to"

The text says "God so LOVED the WORLD that He GAVE... Yes REALLY!"

This is the model of a loving God engaged in substitutionary atonement NOT asking for "appeasement".

Yes - really!!

Another argument John ALSO makes is "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD - yes REALLY!" 1John 4:14.

Calvinims chokes on these statements about God's mission for the Christ and God's motive of Love.

John also says "I will draw ALL mankind to Me... Yes Really!" John 12:32.

And John says that in the same way God sends the Holy Spirit "to CONVICT THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment...yes Really!" John 16:8

The note in John 3 is not spoken - but a narrative to ALL readers - to ALL mankind. The Bible is read by both the saved and the unsaved... "yes Really!"

And of course the PROOF of this so devastating to Calvinism is God ALSO weeping over the case of the Lost whom many Calvinist claim God could not possibly love!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I will post scriptures showing the Love of God for the lost because this TESTS the conclusion that Calvinism "tries to spin" about God not REALLY loving the World --

When the “unchanging God” weeps and grieves over the lost - He is not simply pretending so we will be duped into "thinking" He loves them and works for their salvation, when in fact He cares nothing at all for our children and loved ones that are “not elect”.

God’s Grieving involves tears as a parent weeps for a lost child!!

Lament over Jerusalem

God is sorrowful and GRIEVES for the lost and for the fact that He has done so much to win them - yet they TURN away.

God’s Spirit is grieved by the rebellion of His CHOSEN people His HOLY nation His ROYAL priesthood. Yes even by the LOST among them – even the worst among them.

ALL of God’s Compassion is stirred up within Him over the finally lost!

God will be displeased with the saints IF they rejoice at the fall/judgment of the wicked!

Calvinism fails.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not only does Calvinism try to so-spin Romans 9 as to get God not to even care for the lost (and so no grieving/weeping over those He never works for) -- but it also Argues that God does NOT actually work to save them!!

Another faulty conclusion of Calvinism as we see below.

Revew: God's Will for mankind…. Yes Really!

The SCOPE is Global - the WORLD that was destroyed included ALL. The wicked are accusing God of not being able to DESTORY the SAME world He ALREADY destroyed ONCE by a flood. The DESTRUCTION and LOSS of life IS NOT LIMITED to the safety/fate of the ALREADY SAVED. The future destruction is GLOBAL - and will affect ALL left on the PLANET.

The focus is this great list of UNGODLY men that will be destroyed IF God simply shows up on the spot - at that moment and the UNGODLY have no more chance to TURN to God and BE saved. This is again - the obvious part. The text is NOT concerned that the ALREADY SAVED require some delay - but the CURRENTLY LOST need MORE TIME because as it is now - they are already TOAST so he delays.

In this case the "YOU" that is mentioned ARE among those that USED to be LOST but have been BENEFITED by the DELAY already so far. The texts points to the fact that GOD HIMSELF anticipates that MORE of the LOST to BENEFIT by MORE delay since that is the REASON HE GIVES for the DELAY. (Or more SEAMING delay).

God's WILL for mankind is abundantly clear here - and those who reject this truth about God must find a way to "limit the atonement" AND "limit this statement on His will".
-------------------------------------------

God expends EFFORT to SAVE them - HE SENDS them messages of warning and salvation. At GREAT cost and sacrifice.

Lament over Jerusalem

---------------------------------------

God's PURPOSE FOR THEM is salvation – but those who are ultimately lost reject God’s Purpose for THEM .

Even so - God shows Himself as WORKING for their salvation AND YET they turn.

=============================================================================

God WORKS to win the LOST that HE KNOWS to be those who would ultimately reject the choice for life!!

Parable of the Landowner

 

Finally some have so spun this Calvinist idea that "God did NOT so love the WORLD He only loves the FEW of Matt 7" that they have God as the AUTHOR of the sin of Satan and mankind.

But the Bible does not agree with that kind of Calvinism "either".

God does not orchestrate the wicked to rebel against Him. God is NOT the author of SIN!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

&lt;You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?&gt;

Here we see Calvinism’s view of God who (arbitrarily from the POV of human eyes) selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]Calvinist future scenario complete!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul will learn in a minute that God does not actually care for those that are not coming to Christ and neither should he (at least that is what our Calvinist bretheren would have us hope for).

Paul will learn later in the chapter that God never actually does all that work for those He cares nothing for. Paul will need to pipe down on this point since it appears that God's sovereignly chosen "Holy Nation" and "Royal priesthood" idea did not work. (At least that seems to be what our Calvinist brethren would have us believe).

Really good save on Paul's part for the Arminian idea - but utter failure for Calvinists - Since Calvinist presume that there are no changes - God's sovereign predestined will is being unfolded in history right on schedule. No failures, [no changes to the arbitrary selection process of election.

By this statement above - that would mean that spiritual Jews are the only ones God was EVER concerned about from the Start. By that logic then (since this still continues to be the case after the cross) then there would be NO CHANGE from the OT to NT system! Given the Calvinist model - this is simply THE system as given by God - "working as designed" so "no change needed" at the cross. (Unless of course Calvinists want to argue that God was designing the failure of his "Chosen" even though they are the "children of the promise" from day one)!!

So how does the Arminian view fare by comparison in this case? Very well indeed since The Arminian view anticipates/allows "changes" based on the failure of God's own elect/chosen/established church dues to free will. Adam and Eve - failed, and there was "a change" to what God had sovereignly started.

Then Israel (the Hebrew nation church sovereignly started by God) "failed" and there was "another change". Yet it is the "faithful" - those that choose belief in God and faith in His promises that remain in all the systems.

Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Calvinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

Good example of God knowing the future. Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate. The mother is told which Son will be dominant - which one will have the blessing.

13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Interesting quote of Malachi AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter).

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as if God has ALREADY decided to hate Esau arbitrarily (instead of not wishing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance). But that is not the source of the quote.

Instead of quoting a pre-birth event for Esau in the book of Genesis - Paul is speaking of the case in Malachi regarding the DESCENDANTS of Esau and Jacob - EDOM and Israel. He shows who each of them has played out their own rebellion or obedience toward God - and then how that has translated into their history. Rather than a pre-birth condemnation of Esau - this is a post-Nation evaluation of the History of two nations in Malachi 1:1-5

Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

And as Paul “begins” the letter to the Romans – he points out that God does this “without partiality” of ONE instead of ANOTHER. (the “very thing” that Calvinists would accuse God of doing).

So it “depends on God who HAS mercy” indeed who “is NOT willing that ANY should Perish” and fortunately God “is not partial” – but rather – is just and fair in salvation towards ALL.

 

Bob,

You just just start posting links to this stuff. You are taking up a lot of space reposting the same stuff over and over again. It doesn't get any more true, which is beside the point, but save the space and just post a link to it. That will help on bandwidth.