Does God LOVE everybody

[Whatever]

Is mere benevolence expressed in the incredible sacrifice of Christ for the world?

Is benevolence expressed when God had the Jews go into Jericho and kill every man, woman and child?

 

[brightfame52]

I'm responding to your assertion:
"Its a sin to be without natural affection." and then you quote a portion of Ps. 136 that says nothing about natural affection. So I'm wondering where you're getting that. It's an assertion that doesn't fit the text quoted.

Certainly unnatural affections are wrong, as Paul attests in Rom. 1, but that is not the same thing as "without natural affection." What if someone does not have any natural affection toward anyone, and yet does what is right because he fears God? Would you judge such a person that he is living in sin?

This is in the context of your response to the question about hating parents. Are we on the same page now? Can you give a scripture reference backing up your assertion?

You're confused, reread the post

 

[JLB]

I agree that God has a purpose, and He chose us for that purpose. It doesn't negate the fact that He chose individuals.

He chose, elected, a specific person who would be the bloodline lineage of Christ.

That’s the context of Romans 9.

It’s not that He choose Jacob for salvation and Esau for eternal damnation.


That’s the point I was making about Romans 9 and election.


IOW’s the Jews are the elect. A chosen people through whom God has chosen to bring salvation to the world through Jesus Christ.



JLB

 

[Tenchi]

Nice long story.

Uh huh. I wrote the story more for myself than for the benefit of anyone else. It's one of the ways I work out my thinking on things.

1. God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth
2. God will do all His pleasure, desire, delight.
3. Therefore, all men will be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
Something don't fit there. Either #1 is wrong or #2 is.

If you form bad logic, this is what happens. What you've got here is a false dilemma/dichotomy. The two options you present aren't the only two options that there are. Another option is that it is God's desire that human beings have the freedom to do as they will even when they use that freedom to contravene His own will in certain respects. God delights in demonstrating how great He is by accomplishing what He wishes even though He's given to us the freedom to "make moves" He doesn't meticulously ordain (i.e. compel). He takes pleasure in you and I coming to Him freely, in love, for fellowship with Himself.

But God knows, of course, that His desire to see all people saved cannot be fully satisfied under a circumstance where they are free to choose for, or against, Him. This doesn't mean that He can't still possess the desire for the salvation of all; it simply means that in the order of priority of His desires, our creaturely freedom comes before and above seeing every person saved. This mean His lower priority desire for all to be saved isn't perfectly fulfilled.

Here are a couple of examples from Scripture:

Matthew 23:37
37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Isaiah 48:17-19
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go.
18 "If only you had paid attention to My commandments! Then your well-being would have been like a river, And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.
19 "Your descendants would have been like the sand, And your offspring like its grains; Their name would never be cut off or destroyed from My presence."

So, then:

1. God will do all His desire.
2. God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.
3. God's desires exist in an order of priority.
4. God's higher priority desires limit His lower priority desires.
5. God's desire that all men be free to choose Him is higher in priority than His desire to see all men saved.
6. Therefore, God's lower order desire to see all men saved cannot be perfectly fulfilled.

Calvinists don't take words at their blank meaning. They have a context.
1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Paul already used "all men" in verse 1.
1Ti 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men
If Paul meant every human being without exception, why does he go to explain what he meant in the next verse?
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in authority . . .
Aren't kings and those in authority included in "all men.?"
Here is how Strongs shows how pas is used:
individually
1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
collectively
1. some of all types
It is obvious that "some of all types" is meant. Pray for all types of people, like kings and those in authority.
It is also obvious that Paul means it the same way in verse 4.
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Remember God will do all His pleasure or desire. So what does God end up accomplishing? He saves all kinds of men.

It's been my experience in many conversations with Calvinist/Reformed folk that they use context only insofar as it affirms their soteriological systematic. Those bits of context that give trouble to their systematic either get "reworked" to fit the systematic or ignored. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:4, it seems you've elected (pun intended) for the latter approach. This is understandable since what is said beyond verse 4 by Paul denies the interpretation of verse 4 you've laid out in the quotation above.

1 Timothy 2:1-6
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

A natural, straightforward reading of these verses, unconstrained by the interpretive lens of Calvinism, understands Paul to be saying that entreaties, prayers, petitions, etc are to be made for all men and in particular for kings and all who are in authority. Verse 2, then, doesn't limit the "all men" of verse 1 to just "kings and all who are in authority." Verse 2 only particularizes one demographic encompassed by "all men," because, as Paul explained, praying for these men in particular, but not to the exclusion of all men generally, has the effect of producing a "tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."

3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Verse 4 offers no limiting qualification of "all men," but returns to Paul's all-encompassing command for prayer in verse 1. He goes on to explain that between God and men there is a single Mediator, Jesus Christ. If I took your Calvinist reading of the passage, Whatever, it seems to me, I'd be obliged to think Paul meant the "men" in verse 5 refers solely to the "kings and all who are in authority" in verse 2. This is not, in my view, an "obvious" construction to put upon verse 5 at all. Your reading would further require that I understand verse 6 to mean by "all" only "kings and authorities," too. As far as I'm concerned, doing so would extract from the passage the very opposite of its plain meaning: Salvation is only for "kings and authorities" not actually for "all," as Paul repeats three times. This interpretation of the passage is not only not obvious as you assert but glaringly bizarre in how directly opposite it is to the natural, straightforward meaning of what Paul wrote.

I don't see, then, that you've been particularly context-conscious, Whatever, Calvinist though you are.

I haven't time right now to go into the passage in Peter but you give the same Calvinist "spin" to the plain meaning of Peter's words as you do Paul's.

 

[Whatever]

Uh huh. I wrote the story more for myself than for the benefit of anyone else. It's one of the ways I work out my thinking on things.

Me too. A lot of times I'm just dealing with the subject regardless who I am quoting.

God's desire that human beings have the freedom to do as they will even when they use that freedom to contravene His own will in certain respects.

No problem.

He takes pleasure in you and I coming to Him freely, in love, for fellowship with Himself.

Here's the problem. You seem to be forgetting the fall and curse and how it has effected man.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Man in his unregenerate state will not do what you say God hopes for. Even Jesus know this:
John 8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

Rom 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

You say that God takes pleasure in unregenerate men freely coming to Him. Paul says the unregenerate cannot please God. You can see who Paul is talking about.
"In the flesh" means not having the Spirit of God dwelling in them."
You are not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in you.

 

[Tenchi]

Here's the problem. You seem to be forgetting the fall and curse and how it has effected man.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Man in his unregenerate state will not do what you say God hopes for. Even Jesus know this:
John 8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

Rom 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

You say that God takes pleasure in unregenerate men freely coming to Him. Paul says the unregenerate cannot please God. You can see who Paul is talking about.
"In the flesh" means not having the Spirit of God dwelling in them."
You are not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in you.

But, then, we have a number of unregenerate men in Scripture who seem to be able to move toward God in some measure without the spiritually regenerating effect of the Holy Spirit indwelling them. Instead of being utterly dead - that is, afflicted with a profound, corpse-like inability to respond - to God, they are described in God's word as follows:

Genesis 6:8-9
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Job 1:1
1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

Acts 13:22
22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

Acts 10:1-2
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.

"Dead" in the New Testament, in particular, conveys separation rather than a corpse-like inability to respond. This is borne out by the men described above. The Fall had the effect of spiritually separating Man from God and it is in this sense in which I think Paul was speaking when he wrote that unbelievers are "dead in trespasses and sins"(Ephesians 2:1).

 

[Whatever]

I just noticed something.

Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

The word "coals" there is G440 = anthrax
I looked up Anthrax and it is a bacterial infection and the symptoms are not like hot coals on your head. Just wondering why they gave it that name.

Anyhow, this comes straight out of proverbs:
Pro 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
Pro 25:22 For so you will heap coals of fire on his head, And the LORD will reward you.

Psalm 140:9 "As for the head of those who surround me, Let the evil of their lips cover them;
Psa 140:10 Let burning coals fall upon them; Let them be cast into the fire, Into deep pits, that they rise not up again.

Not sure how Paul understood this.
Don't take vengeance on somebody, do them good and it will increase their suffering. Like:
Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Others say it will bring them shame and maybe bring them to repentance.

 

[JLB]

It's been my experience in many conversations with Calvinist/Reformed folk that they use context only insofar as it affirms their soteriological systematic. Those bits of context that give trouble to their systematic either get "reworked" to fit the systematic or ignored.

Yes sir. Agreed.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

You hear this a lot, but everybody really defines what they mean by love.

Deut 10:15 The LORD delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day.

The word "delighted" according to Strongs:
Delighted = 2836. chashaq
Usage: The Hebrew verb "chashaq" primarily conveys a sense of deep affection, attachment, or love. It often implies a strong emotional bond or desire, whether between individuals or between God and His people. The term can denote both human and divine love, emphasizing a committed and intentional choice to love or be attached to someone or something.

It is clear that God is saying that He only delighted in and loved their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) above everybody else.

Amo 3:2 "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."

Known = H3045 Yada
Usage: The Hebrew verb "yada" encompasses a range of meanings related to knowledge and understanding. It is used to describe intellectual awareness, experiential knowledge, and intimate familiarity. In the biblical context, "yada" often implies a deep, personal, and relational knowledge, such as the intimate relationship between God and His people or between individuals.

I'm not trying to imply that God doesn't have some kind of benevolence toward everybody else, but God has said that there are some He delights in over others.

Yes, God has a universal love for all his creatures, since he gives them life and many other blessings; but he gives his special love to believers with many spiritual blessings in addition to his other human creatures.

 

[Whatever]

Yes, God has a universal love for all his creatures, since he gives them life and many other blessings

Okay. I found this in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Love, whether used of God or man, is an earnest and anxious desire for and an active and beneficent interest in the well-being of the one loved.

Pro 16:4 The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
ESV version
Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

For His own service and glory; for the discovery and illustration of His own wisdom, power, goodness, truth, justice, and his other most glorious perfections. Everything has a purpose.

Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

So the purpose of the wicked is show God's power and wrath.
The elect are to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory (9:22)

I just can't see God having the same "feelings" for both groups.
I can't see God having a "beneficent interest in the well-being" of the wicked. They are for the purpose of glorifying God's wrath and power.

 

[Whatever]

"Dead" in the New Testament, in particular, conveys separation rather than a corpse-like inability to respond. This is borne out by the men described above. The Fall had the effect of spiritually separating Man from God and it is in this sense in which I think Paul was speaking when he wrote that unbelievers are "dead in trespasses and sins"(Ephesians 2:1).

Maybe so, but that was not what Paul was describing when he said:

1Co_2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How about Jesus?
John 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

That "cannot" is that famous Greek word dunamai that some people like to point out is where we get out English word for Dynamite. It simply means to be able or possible.
It also has this thing connected to it οὐκ ouk ook used before a vowel = the absolutely negative.

A few verses later Jesus says:
John 8:47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

It seems obvious that hearing, understanding, accepting the Gospel depends upon "being of God" and those who are "not of God" do not hear, or accept it.

It has nothing to do with being "dead."

 

[Whatever]

But, then, we have a number of unregenerate men in Scripture who seem to be able to move toward God in some measure without the spiritually regenerating effect of the Holy Spirit indwelling them.

How do you know that Noah and the others did not have the Spirit of God. I know that it is the general teaching of Calvinism that you have to be regenerated or born again, but I'm not sure.

The Arminians who were against Calvinism but still had to admit in man's total depravity came up with a work around called "Prevenient Grace." This is a pre-conversion work of the Holy Spirit that makes a person able to come to Christ, but is still resistible. They believed it is given to everybody. That is why it had to be resistible or everybody would be saved.

I kind of believe in something like that, but it is only given to those God has chosen and it is irresistible. Thus Noah and all those you mentioned.

 

[jasonc]

I just noticed something.

Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

The word "coals" there is G440 = anthrax
I looked up Anthrax and it is a bacterial infection and the symptoms are not like hot coals on your head. Just wondering why they gave it that name.

Anyhow, this comes straight out of proverbs:
Pro 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
Pro 25:22 For so you will heap coals of fire on his head, And the LORD will reward you.

Psalm 140:9 "As for the head of those who surround me, Let the evil of their lips cover them;
Psa 140:10 Let burning coals fall upon them; Let them be cast into the fire, Into deep pits, that they rise not up again.

Not sure how Paul understood this.
Don't take vengeance on somebody, do them good and it will increase their suffering. Like:
Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

Others say it will bring them shame and maybe bring them to repentance.

Anthrax causes boils .if you put a hot coal on your skin it will boil .


I have had the anthrax series of shots given until the army stopped them .

 

[lifeform]

Jesus said to love your enemies; so, with loving God first (the greatest Commandment), and loving self and neighbor second (the second greatest commandment), and after that loving one's enemies... God wants us to love everyone. So, then He must love everyone for He commands us to be like Him.

Sin is what God hates.

 

[brightfame52]

The Myth of saying that God Loved all men in the world without exception !​

Romans 9:13

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

How can it be sincerely taught that scripture teaches that God loves all men without exception, when it specifically says of Esau, God Hated ?

And I got news for you, He did not only hate Esau, but all the workers of iniquity. Ps 5:5


5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

And they that work iniquity shall soon hear these words Matt 7:23


23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Yes, these and those in Ps 5:5 are the very same !

 

[brightfame52]

lifeform

Sin is what God hates.

And the worker of iniquity, the one doing the sinning, God hates Ps 5:5

5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

 

[brightfame52]

Bruce.Leiter

Yes, God has a universal love for all his creatures, since he gives them life and many other blessings

Doesn't mean He loves them because He gives them physical blessings, that's Just providential management of His creatures sustaining them according to His purposes.

 

[Whatever]

I have had the anthrax series of shots given until the army stopped them .

Yeah, I looked at my old immunization shot card from Fort Leonard Wood (1965) and it has Anthrax on there.
We walked into one end of a building and there were like 3 or 4 people standing there on each side. You walked through them and each one gave you some kind of shot. At that time they used those guns where they just press it into your shoulder and pull the trigger.

 

[jasonc]

Yeah, I looked at my old immunization shot card from Fort Leonard Wood (1965) and it has Anthrax on there.
We walked into one end of a building and there were like 3 or 4 people standing there on each side. You walked through them and each one gave you some kind of shot. At that time they used those guns where they just press it into your shoulder and pull the trigger.

This was one of six .I don't recall before the late 90s that was around . It would have been asked . We had a few nam vets that did time in the war on terror .

 

[Whatever]

Sin is what God hates

But that isn't how God says it.

Psalm_11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.