Do Believers In Hell Fire Actually Believe?

[VirginShallConceive]

:D Do your golf also?

Oh yeah! Good one, Reba. I agree. The number of strokes a person jots down on their scorecard doesn't necessarily reflect the number of strokes it actually took to get it in the hole. This is a good example of lying to yourself and/or others.

 

[JLB]

totopic


If somebody claims to believe in Eternal Hell Fire, and their actions don't bring forth the fruits of their claims, they might be guilty of some degree of lying, like lying to themselves or something.

I am going to have to agree with you on that.

Good word.

That is the kind of word that will bring change to our lives.


JLB

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I am going to have to agree with you on that.

Good word.

That is the kind of word that will bring change to our lives.JLB

Your post, #83, in my opinion, is probably the best post in this entire thread.

JLB, I have the utmost respect for you.


God Bless





To anyone reading this:

Post #83 is a true gem. While posts like these do exist, they are extremely rare.

 

[gr8grace]

I do believe that there is a literal hell. Why don't i run around tirelessly teaching about hell?

Because I teach about believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. That's what He told us to do.

And believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is the only thing that Keeps a lost person out of the Lake of Fire.

Christ gave us the easy answer in what He did on the Cross.(it was NOT easy for Him)

If you teach about that Cross and have people believe that Cross and you are exhausted at the end of the day, you have done what God has called all to do and have spared people from hell.

I love that Cross so much more than my fear of Hell.

We should be exhausted at the end of everyday showing people the Cross.....The Cross is the ONLY answer for both Heaven and Hell.

God has made it VERY obvious to us how we get to our final destination. And He shows us both heaven and hell can be answered ONLY in His Cross.

Satan wants us to believe that there Is no such thing as hell....He wants all of us to join him(misery loves company)

Gods will....2 Pet 3:9 Not willing that any should perish.

There will not be one atheist in hell( every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord)

Hell is Hell because those people will know that they sent themselves to hell and they will KNOW that Jesus is Lord and will be totally separated From that Lord.

You can come up with every evil idea about what hell is like. But it is knowing that Jesus is Lord and being separated from Him is what makes Hell, Hell. EVERYTHING is about that Cross.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hi, Jarrod.

I do believe that there is a literal hell. Why don't i run around tirelessly teaching about hell?

Because I teach about believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. That's what He told us to do.

But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! -Luke 12:5(NASB)

Jesus, according to Luke 12, seemed to think it was also important to warn people about Hell. If you believe there is a literal Hell, I suggest that you include some warnings about Hell in your valiant, relentless pursuit to save as many souls as you possibly can. Here is something convincing that you might want to say:

"Slowly count to 60. Try as best as you can to keep the intervals at one second per increment. Imagine if you were burning alive for sixty seconds, and imagine how excruciatingly horrible that experience would be. Now, imagine burning for eternity."

And believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is the only thing that Keeps a lost person out of the Lake of Fire.

I suggest that you hurry and get down to the Amazon River area. There are some tribes down there that haven't heard of Jesus yet. Just be careful and watch out for spears. Don't be worried about yourself. If they kill you, you will be in Heaven, but they might end up in the Eternal Lake of Fire if nobody can successfully reach them.

Hell is Hell because those people will know that they sent themselves to hell and they will KNOW that Jesus is Lord and will be totally separated From that Lord.

That would be extremely unfortunate for them.

 

[Webb]

Heaven or hell, which shall we emphasize???? Paul told the Ephesian elders he had not shunned to declare unto them the the WHOLE councel of God. The emphasis is nonetheless now.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Heaven or hell, which shall we emphasize???? Paul told the Ephesian elders he had not shunned to declare unto them the the WHOLE councel of God. The emphasis is nonetheless now.

Hi, Webb.

You know, that might be a good thread on its own, Heaven Or Hell, Which Shall We Emphasize?

You came up with it, at least the wording of the title and main question. Jarrod inspired it. Start it yourself, and I bet it becomes a good interesting thread.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

While I'm not able to quote bible verses, nor do I think it makes much difference as I feel the battling bible verses don't do much good to help understanding in many topics. I am of the belief that no one faces eternal torture. Whether we perish, or pay for sins in a purgatory like place, or as some believe we all go to heaven I don't know.

Hi, mdougie.

Thanks for popping in and adding your thoughts. I can respect what you said. I'm sure that nobody knows the exact details, even if they did have a correct hunch of the all-around truth. This is what it's all about. You have a voice that matters.

 

[Vanguard]

I do believe that there is a literal hell.

I respect your belief.

I covered it on another thread in-depth, but just know that the word "hell" is an Anglo-Saxon word, and the KJV applied it to the Hebrew word sheol (grave) and the Greek word hades (realm of the dead). Neither the Hebrew nor Greek renderings refer to a place of fire, torment or punishment.

 

[JLB]

I respect your belief.

I covered it on another thread in-depth, but just know that the word "hell" is an Anglo-Saxon word, and the KJV applied it to the Hebrew word sheol (grave) and the Greek word hades (realm of the dead). Neither the Hebrew nor Greek renderings refer to a place of fire, torment or punishment.

10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Revelation 20:10

Do you believe the Devil will be cast into literal fire and be tormented?


JLB

 

[mondar]

............... Lately, I just can't accept the notion that my Loving God would set up an eternal Hell of fire, or the equivalently painful Hell, whatever that might be. Lately, I've been having a hard time buying this:

VSC, I think you have stated your presupposition that God is so loving he would never punish man quite adequately. I think there are a few other unstated presuppositions, and I think those presuppositions should be drawn out of you and stated. That is what I hope to do. Actually, if I began with your presuppositions, I would have to agree with your conclusions. I do not see flaws in your logic, but I am not sure I agree with the presuppositional basis of your statement.

Your stated presuppositional basis is that "my Loving God" would not send people to eternal torment. Let me speak of what I am hearing and if I have it wrong, you can correct it. I think the picture of Love here has an equal Love for all men. God just wants to make us happy. If he sends us to eternal torment, then he is a failure at making us happy. Who can worship such a failure?
* Concerning this concept of a loving God I would ask how you know God loves all men equally? Also, there is a certain amount of biblical revelation that suggests the opposite of your picture of God. How would you deal with texts like:
Rom 9:10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac -
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
* God chose Jacob because he loved him. God loved him not based upon anything in Jacob. Not his works, nor his looks. That is OK I guess, but what about the 2nd part. He did not choose Esau because he hated him. Is this the picture of the Loving God you have?

Lets now try to get to some of your unstated presuppositions. Why did God create the universe anyway. I am a trinitarian, and see God has already having a perfect love and perfect fellowship before creation. God was complete before creation and needed nothing. He was perfectly happy. So why did he begin the universe in the first place? It could not have been to have an object for his love, because God had the inter-trinitarian love and was complete already. What do you say? Why did God create the universe?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hi, mondar.

You know, when I type out a long-winded post, such as my OP of this thread, of course I would like people to read it. Replies are even nicer, but at the very least, I would like my words to be read. Now, you come in here and prove that not only have you read it, but you have given it great consideration, and you have also given a somewhat lengthy response. And you've got questions. And, because of your effort, you most certainly deserve answers. I'm gonna try my best.

VSC, I think you have stated your presupposition that God is so loving he would never punish man quite adequately.

No, a more accurate view of my presupposition would be that God is so loving he would never punish man quite ridiculously exceedingly.

I think there are a few other unstated presuppositions, and I think those presuppositions should be drawn out of you and stated. That is what I hope to do. Actually, if I began with your presuppositions, I would have to agree with your conclusions. I do not see flaws in your logic, but I am not sure I agree with the presuppositional basis of your statement.

I find this part of your post extremely intelligent and respectful. It's many miles away from the feeble "You're wrong because I said so."

Your stated presuppositional basis is that "my Loving God" would not send people to eternal torment. Let me speak of what I am hearing and if I have it wrong, you can correct it. I think the picture of Love here has an equal Love for all men. God just wants to make us happy. If he sends us to eternal torment, then he is a failure at making us happy. Who can worship such a failure?

I'm okay if God doesn't make me happy all the time, but eternal torment is infinitely too much. Here's the thing, though: Who can worship such a failure? If I believed that the Creator of the Universe actually sends certain people to Hell to suffer for eternity, I would still worship, even if I didn't understand why He does this. Remember, sixty seconds of extreme torture is unbearable, let alone Eternity. Once again I will say, my actions would coincide with my beliefs.

* Concerning this concept of a loving God I would ask how you know God loves all men equally?

I honestly don't know if He does. I am not going to lie to you and say I do, when I honestly don't.

Also, there is a certain amount of biblical revelation that suggests the opposite of your picture of God. How would you deal with texts like:
Rom 9:10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac -
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
* God chose Jacob because he loved him. God loved him not based upon anything in Jacob. Not his works, nor his looks. That is OK I guess, but what about the 2nd part. He did not choose Esau because he hated him. Is this the picture of the Loving God you have?

This is an excellent, thought-provoking question. First of all, I don't have every single verse in the Bible tucked away in my head along with a self-satisfying explanation to accompany each verse. I will try to decide on one, or at least lean towards one, for the verses you mentioned, since you asked in good fashion.

Another thing is, my only real interaction with intelligent beings has been with humans. Humans are the most intellingent beings I have to go by. In my experience, the more intelligent a human is, the less prejudice they are, on average. The more intelligent a human is, the more fair they treat others. Their rewards and punishments seem to be distributed more fairly, on average.

When I come across verses like the ones you listed, my conclusion is that those are the words of men, and not God. How do I decipher which ones are of God and which ones are not? This is a life-long journey of just doing the best I can. Now, we've all seen it before. Someone might pop in and say, "You are a blasphemer! I believe that every single word in the Bible is breathed by God!" But, if you drill them with questions about enough parts of the Bible, you will find that they say they believe every word, but they change the meanings or believe another liar's altered meaning of a certain passage. For me, I read what it says, and conclude from there. It's better than claiming to believe it, only to twist the meaning around to an incorrect one. Don't you agree? Often, you can tell the "meaning twisters" from the "correct translators" if you get enough of these people together. You will find that the "meaning twisters" won't even agree with each other, because remember, they're pulling their answer out of thin air. At least my answer is far more honest. If you disagree, mondar, please tell me why.

Lets now try to get to some of your unstated presuppositions. Why did God create the universe anyway. I am a trinitarian, and see God has already having a perfect love and perfect fellowship before creation. God was complete before creation and needed nothing. He was perfectly happy. So why did he begin the universe in the first place? It could not have been to have an object for his love, because God had the inter-trinitarian love and was complete already. What do you say? Why did God create the universe?

Well, like I stated before, the most intelligent beings I have studied have been humans. It's the best I have to go by. Why do humans create things? I can only think of three reasons at the moment. They create things to purposely use them to try to make life happier for them. The two things that I think fall in the "purposeful creation" category are tools, and things to amuse, like for entertainment. The only other thing I can think of is things that they accidently create, whether helpful or harmful. 3 things: tools, entertainment, and accidents. Why did God create the Universe? I honestly do not know. There are countless things that I do not know, and I'm not afraid to admit them. In my opinion, if you never arrive at "I do not know", you're not asking enough questions.

I would like to add that your "Why Did God Create?" question can ultimately be applied to many forum threads, if not every thread.

Oh . . . one more thing. Do you have an answer to that question, mondar?

 

[mondar]

I hope you do not mind me deleting much of the material and going to what I see as the key issue.

Well, like I stated before, the most intelligent beings I have studied have been humans. It's the best I have to go by. Why do humans create things? I can only think of three reasons at the moment. They create things to purposely use them to try to make life happier for them. The two things that I think fall in the "purposeful creation" category are tools, and things to amuse, like for entertainment. The only other thing I can think of is things that they accidently create, whether helpful or harmful. 3 things: tools, entertainment, and accidents. Why did God create the Universe? I honestly do not know. There are countless things that I do not know, and I'm not afraid to admit them. In my opinion, if you never arrive at "I do not know", you're not asking enough questions.

I would like to add that your "Why Did God Create?" question can ultimately be applied to many forum threads, if not every thread.

Oh . . . one more thing. Do you have an answer to that question, mondar?

Well, I think we can rule out tools. If God simply speaks things into creation, then he does not need tools. Entertainment? I do not see planet Earth as very entertaining. Accidental? LOL, can God be God and have an accident? That would not be much of a God.

In fact, I do not think God created because he "needs." God was complete because the Father loved the Son and the HS and was loved by them. The members of the trinity had perfect fellowship and he has no "needs." So why create? So that God can manifest his glory. He created two classes of creatures to witnesses his glory, men and angels. The angels sang about his glory at the birth of Christ. So God made creation to see "ALL" his glory. He will then show love and mercy. He will also show his justice and wrath. So then, for God to accomplish all this he must create a universe with both love and hate, obedience and disobedience, righteousness and sin. Of course God cannot be a part of the sin, but he can create a universe in which he intends for others to sin and rebel and then judge them.

Lets go back to the passage I quoted before concerning Esau.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
OK, God hates Esau. As you mentioned, a hard truth to believe. In fact this is such a hard truth to believe the author acknowledges the difficulty in the very next verse.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
If the truth of verse 13 were easy, then this rhetorical question would not need asked. If God hated Esau, is he unrighteous? Oddly enough the author of this passage seems to raise the same questions you have... how can it be that God can hate Esua? Would that not make God unrighteous?
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
This is the answer. God can show Mercy to some and its up to him. He chose not to show Mercy to Esau. God does not have to show mercy to anyone. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and God can judge any or all of us. Or he can show mercy to some. Or he can show mercy to all if he chooses, but then would he get glory for manifesting his wrath against sin? So God chooses to be merciful to some, and show his wrath on others, but everyone deserves it.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
So then, its all up to God who shows mercy.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Now the person that God hates is changed from Esau to Pharaoh. Here God raised up Pharaoh to power so that he might show the great glory of his power to all the earth. This again reminds me of your attitude that God cannot be this way. It reminds me of your objections. Can inspired scripture really be presenting such a God who creates Esau just to hate him, and Pharaoh just to judge him?
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Again the author claims God can show mercy to those whom he desires, and can harden some for judgement, such as Esau and Pharaoh.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Of course the logical question would be what about poor Esau and poor Pharaoh. How can they possibly resist Gods will? How can God find fault in Esau and Pharaoh if he created them for the purpose of showing his justice and wrath?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
The answer provided in the text is that the creation has no rights to claim against a creator. Follow the illustration in relationship to the question. Why does God find fault? Well, its like a potter and a piece of clay. If the potter makes a pot for the sewer, one intended to be smashed, well, that is up to the potter. But if he makes a beautiful masterpiece, that is still up to the potter. Just like it is up to the creator to hate Esau and love Jacob. Just like it is up to the creator to judge Pharaoh. It is the right of the potter or the right of the creator to do with his creation as he purposes and pleases.

Its a hard truth that we are all just a piece of clay in the potters hands. It might be the most difficult truth to believe in the bible. But that truth is what the author of Romans is talking about.

In a way, I admire your statement more then most Christians. You react "I just cannot believe that message is from God." Most Christians do not believe it either. They try to change the words of the text to make it mean that the text is not saying that God really loves everybody and would not make Esau to hate him or make Pharaoh for the purpose of judgment. Both of you lack faith in the glorious God, but yours is far more honest. You do not change the text, you just find it hard to believe. Paul knows what he is saying is hard to believe. He puts those rhetorical questions in and then answers them. I find it hard to believe too, but I do believe it. My presuppositions are that all the text is from God. So I believe God can do with his creation as he pleases. He give some faith, and others he judges. Oddly enough, in the passage, non of us are really any different. We are all of the same clay. Non is any better or worse. See this next verse....
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
God chooses, or elects, not because of who or what we are, but because he wants to manifest the whole range of his love, justice, wrath, and glory.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I hope you do not mind me deleting much of the material and going to what I see as the key issue.

Not at all. I do it all the time. Anyway, you addressed every question I had, even the deleted ones.

Well, I think we can rule out tools. If God simply speaks things into creation, then he does not need tools. Entertainment? I do not see planet Earth as very entertaining. Accidental? LOL, can God be God and have an accident? That would not be much of a God.

In fact, I do not think God created because he "needs." God was complete because the Father loved the Son and the HS and was loved by them. The members of the trinity had perfect fellowship and he has no "needs." So why create? So that God can manifest his glory. He created two classes of creatures to witnesses his glory, men and angels. The angels sang about his glory at the birth of Christ. So God made creation to see "ALL" his glory. He will then show love and mercy. He will also show his justice and wrath. So then, for God to accomplish all this he must create a universe with both love and hate, obedience and disobedience, righteousness and sin. Of course God cannot be a part of the sin, but he can create a universe in which he intends for others to sin and rebel and then judge them.

Lets go back to the passage I quoted before concerning Esau.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
OK, God hates Esau. As you mentioned, a hard truth to believe. In fact this is such a hard truth to believe the author acknowledges the difficulty in the very next verse.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
If the truth of verse 13 were easy, then this rhetorical question would not need asked. If God hated Esau, is he unrighteous? Oddly enough the author of this passage seems to raise the same questions you have... how can it be that God can hate Esua? Would that not make God unrighteous?
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
This is the answer. God can show Mercy to some and its up to him. He chose not to show Mercy to Esau. God does not have to show mercy to anyone. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and God can judge any or all of us. Or he can show mercy to some. Or he can show mercy to all if he chooses, but then would he get glory for manifesting his wrath against sin? So God chooses to be merciful to some, and show his wrath on others, but everyone deserves it.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
So then, its all up to God who shows mercy.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Now the person that God hates is changed from Esau to Pharaoh. Here God raised up Pharaoh to power so that he might show the great glory of his power to all the earth. This again reminds me of your attitude that God cannot be this way. It reminds me of your objections. Can inspired scripture really be presenting such a God who creates Esau just to hate him, and Pharaoh just to judge him?
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Again the author claims God can show mercy to those whom he desires, and can harden some for judgement, such as Esau and Pharaoh.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Of course the logical question would be what about poor Esau and poor Pharaoh. How can they possibly resist Gods will? How can God find fault in Esau and Pharaoh if he created them for the purpose of showing his justice and wrath?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
The answer provided in the text is that the creation has no rights to claim against a creator. Follow the illustration in relationship to the question. Why does God find fault? Well, its like a potter and a piece of clay. If the potter makes a pot for the sewer, one intended to be smashed, well, that is up to the potter. But if he makes a beautiful masterpiece, that is still up to the potter. Just like it is up to the creator to hate Esau and love Jacob. Just like it is up to the creator to judge Pharaoh. It is the right of the potter or the right of the creator to do with his creation as he purposes and pleases.

Its a hard truth that we are all just a piece of clay in the potters hands. It might be the most difficult truth to believe in the bible. But that truth is what the author of Romans is talking about.

In a way, I admire your statement more then most Christians. You react "I just cannot believe that message is from God." Most Christians do not believe it either. They try to change the words of the text to make it mean that the text is not saying that God really loves everybody and would not make Esau to hate him or make Pharaoh for the purpose of judgment. Both of you lack faith in the glorious God, but yours is far more honest. You do not change the text, you just find it hard to believe. Paul knows what he is saying is hard to believe. He puts those rhetorical questions in and then answers them. I find it hard to believe too, but I do believe it. My presuppositions are that all the text is from God. So I believe God can do with his creation as he pleases. He give some faith, and others he judges. Oddly enough, in the passage, non of us are really any different. We are all of the same clay. Non is any better or worse. See this next verse....
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
God chooses, or elects, not because of who or what we are, but because he wants to manifest the whole range of his love, justice, wrath, and glory.

As far as burning for eternity or being tortured for eternity, nothing, in my opinion can excuse a being for allowing this. The casually-stated "Well, God's ways are above and beyond our comprehension" doesn't satisfy me. Because even if God's ways are above and beyond our ways, it doesn't take away the fact(hypothetically, if eternal suffering is true) that what I feel when I accidentally touch a hot stove for one second, there are sentient beings that feel this non-stop forever and ever and ever. You can talk about pottery all you want. If somebody creates a clay pot and decides to smash it, almost nobody cares. If somebody decides to have babies for the purpose of torturing them, almost everybody cares, and they have good reason to. Allowing your creation to burn for all eternity is worse behavior than any child abuse that has ever occurred on this earth. I'm not getting angry, I just don't believe it. If you believe this, I honestly believe that you are lying to yourself. If you think that I'm crazy, think again.

 

[mondar]

As far as burning for eternity or being tortured for eternity, nothing, in my opinion can excuse a being for allowing this. The casually-stated "Well, God's ways are above and beyond our comprehension" doesn't satisfy me. Because even if God's ways are above and beyond our ways, it doesn't take away the fact(hypothetically, if eternal suffering is true) that what I feel when I accidentally touch a hot stove for one second, there are sentient beings that feel this non-stop forever and ever and ever. You can talk about pottery all you want. If somebody creates a clay pot and decides to smash it, almost nobody cares. If somebody decides to have babies for the purpose of torturing them, almost everybody cares, and they have good reason to. Allowing your creation to burn for all eternity is worse behavior than any child abuse that has ever occurred on this earth. I'm not getting angry, I just don't believe it. If you believe this, I honestly believe that you are lying to yourself. If you think that I'm crazy, think again.

Heh, no, your not crazy. And I did say that what Paul wrote in Romans is not easy to believe. With your starting presuppositions that we can judge certain parts of the bible to be the word of God and other reject other parts. As I said, with those presuppositions, this would be the passage to reject. On the other hand, the word of God has other things. It is the guilt of mankind. In that same book, in Romans 5, we see that mankind is "in Adam." As such, we all took part in the sin of Adam. So then, the infant is just as guilty as Hitler. The scriptures tells us that we are all dead in our sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1). There are none of us that deserve a chance, all of us deserve judgment. From the infant to Hitler, we all deserve judgment.

Yes, : ), I know. Thats hard to believe too.

 

[JLB]

God chose Jacob because he loved him. God loved him not based upon anything in Jacob. Not his works, nor his looks. That is OK I guess, but what about the 2nd part. He did not choose Esau because he hated him. Is this the picture of the Loving God you have?

This is a Hebrew Idiom or expression and does not mean God hated Esau.

It' stress' a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)​

A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.

The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).


JLB

 

[VirginShallConceive]

God chose Jacob because he loved him. God loved him not based upon anything in Jacob. Not his works, nor his looks. That is OK I guess, but what about the 2nd part. He did not choose Esau because he hated him. Is this the picture of the Loving God you have?

This is a Hebrew Idiom or expression and does not mean God hated Esau.

It' stress' a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)
​

A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.

The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).


JLB

JLB, I am so impressed with this post. Your sharing of your understanding gives those passages a new light. Amen!

 

[mondar]

God chose Jacob because he loved him. God loved him not based upon anything in Jacob. Not his works, nor his looks. That is OK I guess, but what about the 2nd part. He did not choose Esau because he hated him. Is this the picture of the Loving God you have?

This is a Hebrew Idiom or expression and does not mean God hated Esau.

I do not see reason to take the passage non-literally. The context certainly does not require us to read the word "hated" as "loved a little less." The word says God hated Esau, but that he "loved him less then Jacob."

It' stress' a contrast of degree

not of absolute love and hate.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)​

A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.

The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).


JLB

I did not say that the hate was "absolute." I think you suggesting that I did would be to misrepresent what I said. I would agree that the hatred is in Election, but it is still hate. Rather then water down the passage as you do by saying it is idiomatic, you could have just left your post to say that the "hatred" is not absolute because God also loves Esau in a non-elective way.

 

[John 8:32]

JLB, I am so impressed with this post. Your sharing of your understanding gives those passages a new light. Amen!

Yepper, the same concept is found here...

Luk 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.

Very good point and keen insight JLB.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Yepper, the same concept is found here...

Luk 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.

Very good point and keen insight JLB.

Amen, John 8:32!

And, once again, they don't act like they believe in eternal Hell Fire.

Someone once said, "Actions speak louder than words". It obviously applies here.