For God so loved the world

Who teaches that?

 

Among the "many ways to dodge" the points raised "repeatedly" (including points I make WITH quotes from Pastor Larry IN the scenarios and from Johnathan Edwards AND from Calvin and from Spurgeon --) your non-response above is perhaps the "most reliable" retort that one gets as the primary "dodge" taken out of having to actually answer the points raised.

I affirm that this is INDEED what is said to avoid dealing with any detail raised.

Indeed EVEN though the post is rife with quotes from Spurgeon, Calvin, Pastor Larry, JohnP AND Johnathan Edwards - this same old "dodge" comes back...

EVEN When Calvinists here jump onto their "God Hates Hates Hates" bandwagon as they seem to cave on this topic. STILL "Denial" of all that has been said is the "theme" of Calvinist "shell-gaming" where crawling out on a limb and then DENYING it is the "rule" rather than the exception.

It is easy to "note" that so far you have YET to deal with a single SPECIFIC in the points raised INCLUDING the SPECIFIC about pointing to some historic post here where you and others ARE claiming that SPECIFICS were addressed!.

As already asksed "Is there no limit" to this dodging???!!

EVEN when the subject TURNS TO DODGING - you answer by dodgin!!

No limit??? None at all??!!

All you had to do was POINT to a "Specific" and SAY you deny it so that when I POST the quote that goes WITH that detail you can talk about how Calvin or Spurgion or Edwards or Larry are not really your kind of Calvinsts when they ADMIT to the detail you want to reject.

Yes we keep HEARING that claim but never actually SEEING a link posted OR a comment repeat-posted.

yet with MY POINTS EVEN the Calvinists ADMIT that they have SEEN THEM many times before.

Step up to the plate.

Back up something you claim with fact.

Try actually "responding" to a point raised.

Or is this "game of dodge" a genetic thing with Calvinists of your POV?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, you quote without context and you twist those quotes to fit your strawman, and then when we point this out you accuse us of dodging. How "instructive".

 

Whatever -

King James Bond did when he wrote:

"Many people seem to have a hard time understanding that God can hate enough to reject people. "


According to God's word, God IS Love.

 

I think that is a is a good example of a false assumption that Calvinists make.

They claim that we may get away with "bending" a text away from what it is clearly saying IF we can "pile up some bad inferences" on some other text so as to oppose the first text with another one.

That is not exegesis and it is not legit.

RATHER we have boundaries set by each text. Boundaries in what they explicitly say in context and boundaries in what they do not say - but we give to them by way of inference.

It is "clear" that God DOES say He LOVES the world and even provides Atoning Sacrifice for the "WHOLE WORLD"!

This is not inference it is EXPLICIT IN the text.

That is undisputable.

When God SAYS He "So loves the WORLD" Calvinism will often add the weaselage "It does not mean "every single person" and it does not mean "earth".

That is the kind of "lawyereeze" and sleezy marketing hype claim for God that is revolting NOT just to Arminians but ALSO to 3Point Calvinists!!. The idea that God's way of saying "God so loved the FEW of Matt 7 that HE GAVE His Son" -- is to say "God so loved the WORLD" and "God gave Christ as the Atoning Sacrifices for the WHOLE WORLD" and "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" -- is certainly marketeering at its best overblown state -- by any measure!


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now there is a perfect Arminian statement. God loves the WORLD SUCH THAT He gives His Son (An Atoning Sacrifice for the WHOLE WORLD) so that ANYONE who believes (not just anyone among the FEW of Matt 7) - but ANYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD -- may be saved.

Christ stands at the door and knocks for ALL MANKIND (The light that coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY ONE of mankind) so that ANYONE who hears and opens the door has the promise that Christ will come in.

NOT just a promise to "ANYONE among the FEW of MAtt 7".

Wrong again.

When God decides from eternity passed to LOVE the WORLD and GIVE His Son for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD" the world is NOT divided between Believers and Unbelievers.

RATHER we have as Romans 5 says a WORLD of LOST unbelievers LOST and unconverted - LOST and bound for hell LOST and needing a Savior.

We have JUST the LOST. NOT a divided world consisting of LOST then another group of BELIEVERS so that God may THEN say -- Hey I think I will love those BELIEVERS.

The Calvinist "word gaming" inserts illogical choices where they never existed.

God STARTS with a lost world -- NO BELIEVERS.

And God says THAT HE THEN "SO loves the WORLD" that He GIVES -- from eternity past.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The grossly obvious circular argument you attempted above is of the following form --

God so loved the World of BELIEVERS.

Who are the Believers? - Those that God So loved!

WHO are those that God loved - the Believers!

THE REALITY is that in a world of NO believers - only Romans 5 LOST humanity - in THAT context God sovereignly CHOOSES to "SO LOVE THE WORLD" that HE chooses to GIVE His Son.

Prior to that sovereign choice to SAVE on God's part - prior to that salvation there can BE no "Believers". If the FIRST cause is going to be GOD - then HE chooses FIRST to "SO LOVE" something. There are NO believers in that FIRST state/condition/cause.

It is only a LOST world that He is faced with according to Romans 5.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Scripture also says that God sent his son, not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.

Scripture also says that God desires that all men repent and be saved.

Scripture also says that God sends his message of grace unto all men that they might be saved.

And scripture also says that men perish because men refuse the truth.

And Christ said he came for the sinners, not the righteous.

God is a God of love.

You are blashpheming God to teach that He is a God of hate.

 

BTW -

Before you take a verse out of context and use it to support the theory that "God hates without reason," you need to really know the background of the verse referred to.

The bible notes regarding that verse in Romans, refers you back to Malachi.

The bible notes for Malachi say that the scriptures actually reads more like, "God loved Jacob more," in the same way it was said that Jacob "hated Leah" and loved Rachel. Jacob, it is believed, did not "hate" Leah, but he preferred Rachel.

A few more things before you stand too strongly on that verse as supporting your cause.

Esau was never meant to be the first born child. He grabbed his brother's heel and pulled him back. First mistake he made was in the womb. A mistake of thwarting God's design.

Also, the "apparent hatred" was not "random." Esau was jealous and plotted the murder of his brother. A very ungodly heart. Jacob had a godly heart. Esau did not.

Hardly, "Random election."

 

"Esau was never meant to be the first born child."
Yes he was, because God said "The elder shall serve the younger." Nothing went against God's plan.
"He grabbed his brother's heel and pulled him back."
This is nowhere to be found in Genesis 25, where this took place. Did I miss something there? It was the other way around: Jacob grabbed Esau's heel.
Does God hate without reason? No.
But in Hosea He makes it clear that He hates for a reason: "...I will love them no more." What he said in Genesis, "My spirit shall not always strive with man" is still true. God will only go so far with people, but then gives up on them. These are the vessels fit for destruction. It is not a random thing like Calvinist's contend.
So, I do feel as though we are on the same side of this issue.
If one were to take the passage "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" in a literal since, then you have to do that with the passage where the Lord said that one should "Hate Father and Mother" also in a literal since. It is clearly a matter of degree.
All through Romans 9 Paul speaks of Israel and earthly privelidge that God bestows apon man, it has nothing to do with God choosing this one to be saved, and this one to be lost. Such a notion is alien to the Bible. (Although I am sure that my Calvinist brethren will try to prove differently.)

 

BURRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

 

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." —Romans 9:15.

(speaking of Edom and Israel NATIONal HISTORY under the name Esau and Jacob)

(Actually posted here --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1543/2.html#000015

Is THIS an answer you would like to "see inserted" into that "Scenario" posted above?

Would it make it "any more Calvinist" to do that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

God says "He is NOT Partial" Romans 2:11-13.

That means that the Romans 9 principle that it has ALWAYS been "Children of the Promise" That are heirs - is UNCHANGED.

It is NOT a case of arbitrary selection of SOME of Israel to be saved and SOME to be lost. RATHER it is the IMPARTIAL GOD operating according to the rules listed in Romans 2 where the only circumcision that EVER counted ws "Circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit" as Romans 2 states.

It is the SAME point made again in Romans 9.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is classic "marketeering" you are simply "turning a phrase" as a gimmick to get God OUT of the problem of ACTUALLY having to "So Love the WORLD"!

That is classic Calvinism but is never the Gospel method.

God so loved the WORLD -- Yes "really"!!

Calvinism tries a bit of lawyereeze-sleeze saying "World! Did I say WORLD!! Well I didn't really mean ALL the People in the World! Surely you did not think That did you?? heh heh! No, No I meant God so Loved SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD... Surely that came out loud and clear didn't it??

Ok Arminians - Maybe I should have worded it differently"

But the "NEW" Twist KJB adds it that God is now not claiming to LOVE EVEN ONE PERSON in the World == just a peopleless-planet!!

That is taking the Calvinist idea of loophole-ing to a whole new level!!

I didn't think it could be done!!

Congrats!

Oh great!! We are back to having a world full of people!!

Wonderful!

Good to have you back KJB!

Do we also have the same WORLD full of PEOPLE that John introduced us to in John 1:1-6??

I sure hope so because THEN the CONTEXT for that WORLD in John 3 is that Christ "Came INTO the WORLD the same WORLD that HE made and came as LIGHT to the WORLD enlightening EVERYONE of mankind"

Ohh - Ouch!! There is that "Exegesis thing" again.

The WORLD being given an all-people CONTEXT right at the START of John's Gospel!!

"God so LOVED The WORLD that WHOEVER" -- hmm I wonder how many of those "WhoEVERS" is human??

Yep you got it - ALL of them!!

And HOW many Humans qualify under "WHOEVER" as a "WHOEVER"??

Yep! you got it!! -- ALL of them!!

Excuse me - but this is the SAME circular argument already exposed at the topo of page 4.

Here is a link.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1543/4.html#000045

Wrong question.

IF ALL humans are UNBELIEVERS when GOD CHOOSES to "SO LOVE" and then to "GIVE" as a result of that "SO LOVING" -- then Calvinism has no chance to insert its circular arugment AS IF God is looking on a vast sea of BELIEVERS and saying -- "OK I think I will LOVE THEM and GIVE them a Savior"!!

The sea of BELIEVERS coming BEFORE God decides to LOVE them - does not exist.

God Loves a LOST WORLD and as a RESULT of that -- there comes about the existence of Believers.

CAlvinists in John 3 like to START with a sea of Believers whom God does NOT LOVE - and THEN God decides to Love THEM and ONLY THEM!!

How "illogical" of the Calvinists to suggest such a thing in their "all for Calvinism" model.

Much better to drop the marketeering and just stick with "God so LOVED THE WORLD that WHOSOEVER believes should not perish but have everlasting life"


In Christ,

Bob

 

Did I hear the words lawyereeze-sleeze???

You want to see some marketeering....you got it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1534/10.html#000149

 

Hey you objected to my "paying attention to the Details" again.

I am focused on the fact that the light of Christ is the Light of men -- and you argue "yes but not every man" and then the text says "the light of every man" right after you show that you need to avoid that problem!

How cool is that?!!

Global context: "The LIGHT OF MEN" unqualified (as in – “mankind”).

The intended purpose is that ALL should believe – unqualified ALL, no limit!

"Light shines in DARKNESS" - the entire world is said to be in darkness not just the jews.
"so that ALL might believe through Him" Unqualified - the message of John in the Gospels has gone to all the WORLD.

In Christ,

Bob