Does God LOVE everybody

[brightfame52]

Yes, God loves everybody; but no, not everybody loves God, and that's neither God's purpose nor His fault.

False, God doesnt love Esau Rom 9:13

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

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

False, God doesnt love Esau Rom 9:13

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

Yes, God hated Esau as much as we shall hate our own family, even our own flesh to be worthy of Jesus's disciple. If you can correctly understand that Jesus meant as a disciple you must love him MORE than your family, putting the Lord before them, then you should know what "hate" means here. You failed to let the Scripture interpret itself.

 

[brightfame52]

Yes, God hated Esau as much as we shall hate our own family, even our own flesh to be worthy of Jesus's disciple. If you can correctly understand that Jesus meant as a disciple you must love him MORE than your family, putting the Lord before them, then you should know what "hate" means here. You failed to let the Scripture interpret itself.

Carry_Your_Name

Yes, God hated Esau as much as we shall hate our own family

Who God hated had nothing to do with me, I didnt exist when God purposed to hate esau

 

[follower]

God doesnt save all people because He doesnt love all people !

His Choice. He Created all things. The Potter is well able to do what He Chooses with the clay.

 

[follower]

Yes, God loves everybody; but no, not everybody loves God, and that's neither God's purpose nor His fault.

Not possible unless you define love as if worldly, carnal, or fleshly love. That's not God.

 

[Tenchi]

Yes, you think that because you have a normal human centered "man has free will" interpretative lens on.

No, I simply take God's word as it is, without the distorting lens of Calvinism.

I realize it may seem impossible to you, as a Calvinist, but it is actually the case that those who don't hold to Calvinism have a higher view of God, a more God-centered view of Him, than you do. I've already pointed out one such instance in earlier posts, illustrated in the chess master analogy: Which chess master is the greater master of chess? The one who must order all the moves of his opponent in order to win? Or the one who always wins no matter the moves his opponent may make? Obviously, the latter. Which soteriological systematic, though, sees God as the latter, greater "chess master"? Not Calvinism. In the Calvinist systematic, God must meticulously ordain all things that come to pass. In my Provisionist/Molinist view, God confers free agency on His creatures because He is great enough to see His will done whatever "moves" His creatures may make. How is this higher, non-Calvinist view of God "man-centered"? Clearly, it isn't.

Nothing strange about it. Did God not know where Adam was?
Gen 3:9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"

Did God not know that they had eaten from the tree?
Gen 3:11 . . . Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?"

God uses psychology on us like a parent does with their child. Asks questions they already know the answer to in order to convict us or give us a chance to confess.

On a Calvinist view, though, these questions - especially the latter one - remain very odd, even deceptive, since Adam's hiding and his eating of the Forbidden Fruit were both ordained of God, though God gives no hint that this is the case in His words to Adam. Instead, God lays all the blame for Adam's sin at Adam's feet, offering not the slightest indication that He was Himself actually the ultimate Cause of Adam's sin, as Calvinism asserts.

On a Provisionist/Molinist view, God inducing Adam to take responsibility for his sin and admit to it, as you suggest, makes a good deal more sense.

And when you think about it, they didn't have much of a conversation.
Acts 9:5 Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
Acts 9:6 Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

Short or long, Christ's words to Paul, under Calvinism, ring just as oddly to my ear as God's remarks to Adam at the Fall in Eden. With Paul, too, God (Christ) admits to no involvement in Paul's persecution of the Church, though, at bottom, Paul was only acting according to God's sovereign decree. Again, this would strike me as rather deceptive, even farcical, were it true that God had ordained that Paul should persecute and kill His children. It would be much like a father who grabs his boy's arm and makes his boy hit himself in the face with his own hand while saying, "Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself? Stop hitting yourself." That you don't see this (or, at least, don't want to acknowledg it) is...disturbing.

Because Paul didn't know at that time that he had been ordained to do all this. This breaking into Paul's life was part of that sovereign plan to convert Paul to Christianity. It worked didn't it?

This doesn't answer the apparent deceptiveness of what Christ said and did to Paul (under a Calvinist perspective), giving the clear impression to Paul (and to readers of the Damascus Road event) that Paul had both acted contrary to the will of God in persecuting the Church and was being persuaded to leave off doing so. The dissonance here - your psychological explanation notwithstanding - between Calvinist doctrine and Christ's interaction with Paul is quite striking, I think. A Provisionist/Molinist view avoids this dissonance entirely, however.

You forget that Calvinism (or the Bible) teaches that God works through means.

No, I haven't forgotten this. I've talked with many Calvinists over the years and they always eventually bring up the Calvinist adage "God ordains the means, as well the ends." This adage doesn't dissolve the things I've observed above.

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

I understand that this is Calvinist doctrine. But quoting it here doesn't make Calvinist doctrine true.

God typically works out his purposes through human decisions, natural laws, and the many causes and reactions that are constantly at play in ordinary life--what the Westminster Confession refers to as "second causes."

Yes, this is obvious and not at all unique to the Calvinist perspective. Where Calvinism differs from other views is in the belief that God doesn't just use various means to affect His will, but meticulously ordains those means and the ends they accomplish.

A "second cause" is simply "a cause caused by something else." This expression is used in theology to distinguish between God as the ultimate cause of everything that comes to pass and the myriad smaller causes we see at work in the world.

Uh huh.

Some of these second causes are as necessary as the laws of physics. Others are as free as the decision to order a cheeseburger. But whether things happen by necessity or contingency, they all occur under the overarching providence of God. Even chance and probability are the servants of his will.

If what you're trying to explain here is the soft determinsm (i.e. compatibilism) of Calvinist doctrine, then you should simply say that Man's "freedom" under this notion is not freedom, really, at all, since all of Man's desires that he "freely" follows are, under Calvinism, ordained by God. As Dr. Leighton Flowers puts it, On compatibilism, Man is free to follow what he wants but his "wanter" is controlled by God. How is Man, truly free, then? Well, obviously, he's not.

Because He was persuading Paul to a different course. Again, Calvinism is not mechanical fatalism.

Many leading Calvinists today would strongly disagree with you. R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, Steve Lawson (ahem), John Frame, Voddie Baucham, etc., all hold to some form of theological determinism (what you call "mechanical fatalism"). So, no, according to Calvinism, Christ was not persuading Paul but merely giving the illusion of doing so, the reality actually being that Paul had been doing, and was going to continue to do, exactly what God had determined he would do. On Provisionism/Molinism this incongruity (deceptiveness?) in Christ's exchange with Paul does not exist.

God works through means, like persuading Paul.

But, on Calvinism, there is no real persuading going on, since Paul doing God's will is a foregone conclusion. The Damascus Road event, then, is a sort of empty pantomime, giving the false impression that Paul must be persuaded to follow Christ's will.

No, only under your misunderstood idea of Calvinism as mechanical fatalism.

See above.

Yes, to a mind hostile to God's word. It makes sense to your human free will centered view of reality.

Again with the dismissive labels/characterizations? Well, in this you're certainly consistent with all the other Calvinists I've encountered...

In reality, I think I'm less hostile to God's word than you are, the example of the Damascus Road event being a good example. On my Provisionist/Molinist view, I can take the exchange between Paul and Christ just as it is, reading it in a natural, straightforward way, not having to hold the whole thing in tension with a systematic that makes the event entirely false, as a Calvinist must do.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Isa 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD.
Isa 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Amen. But, as I see it, this passage applies much more to you than to me. See above.

Man's view:
All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth, To everybody.

I don't know what the point of this observation here is since I don't subscribe to "Man's view" but to God's, declared plainly in His word:

1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Yeah, but only if you leave it by itself. Remember "hermenutics" Clearer passages help interpret less clear passages.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated "aphorizo" me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
I already showed this before, but I will repeat for the sake of other readers.

"aphorizo" "to mark off by bounds" (apo, "from," horizo, "to determine"
Is used of the Divine action in setting men apart for the work of the gospel, Rom_1:1

Paul was separated to the gospel of God before he was born "determined." So when he was "invited" naturally he accepted.

Galatians 1:15-16
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen...

I think the verse is quite clear in its statement that Paul was "called" - which is to say "invited" - through God's grace (extended to the world in Jesus Christ, the Savior), to reveal Jesus through his life, preaching Jesus among the heathen. Only if one subscribes to a Calvinist soteriology do Paul's words here need "clarifying." Otherwise, they are entirely clear just as they are.

God, in His omniscience, knew what Paul would freely choose to do when confronted with Christ and His salvific work at Calvary on the road to Damascus. And so, having always known this, as omniscience requires, God dealt with Paul such that Paul freely acted as God always knew He would in the circumstance of the Damascus Road.

Many mistake God's foreknowledge of things as causative, thinking that what God knows as a certainty people will do in the future, they must, therefore, necessarily do. But, as modal logic shows, necessity is a property of statements/propositions, not person's. So, we can state that God's omniscience necessarily entails that He has always known all things. This is a truth-proposition about the nature of omniscience that cannot be otherwise (it must necessarily be true): If there is anything that can be known that isn't known by an omniscient being, then that being is not omniscient.

As a property of His omniscience, then, God knows with perfect certainty what we will do. But His certainty doesn't mean we must do what He, by reason of His omniscience, necessarily knows we will do. We could do something else, in which case, God would know that, too. Whatever we might freely choose to do, God has always known it, because this is what being omniscient means. But, again, this knowledge does not equal causation. As a mundane example: A pregnant mother anticipates with great certainty that her baby will poop its diapers, spit up its milk, cry, and sleep, etc. But the mother's certainty about these things doesn't determine that the baby will do them. Though the mother isn't omniscient, as God is, and so her certainty isn't arising from the necessity of always knowing everything like His is, in both cases, their certainty doesn't have causative power.

Yeah, I see free agency all over the Bible

You would, if you didn't confine yourself to Calvinist prooftexts.

Jeremiah 19:4-5
4 "Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;

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 10:1-2
1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

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.

Deuteronomy 30:15-19
15 "See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity;
16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
17 "But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them,
18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.
19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

And so on.

 

[Indentured Servant]

If God said that he HATES the hands that shed innocent blood, do you think it means "to love less"? In some sense, there is some love involved, that is, mercy, that God is patient toward such people. Otherwise, he would immediately kill them justly and send them to torment in Hades. God also is patient toward wicked people to use them as He sees fit, for His own purpose (Rom. 9 et. al.) and to afflict His people (Heb. 12 et. al.), and He says that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So then, neither is the common love of God downplayed in scripture, nor is the just hate of God downplayed. God is both just and the justifier of the one having faith in Jesus. "Behold the kindness and severity of God..." "The one who believes has eternal life [recipient of love/grace], but the one who does not believe will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" [recipient of hate/justice].

Missionaries tell us that about 4% of people are being saved (I assume they are talking about genuine faith). This means that 96% of people are being passed over (not chosen for adoption). Therefore, we who believe in Jesus should feel extremely fortunate and blessed by God to have been chosen out of the world. We should be highly motivated to obey God and attempt to persuade people to join us in this marvelous walk of faith.

My apologies for not including the Greek/Hebrew word that actually means "hate."

The word used in Malachi means "love less," as does the statement that most people read as "hating" your parents or children. Those examples literally mean "love less."

There are Greek and Hebrew words that do actually mean hate, but not all words translated into English as 'hate' carry that meaning.

Sorry for the confusion I seem to have caused.

 

[Whatever]

There are Greek and Hebrew words that do actually mean hate, but not all words translated into English as 'hate' carry that meaning.

What does the word "abhor" mean?

Psalm 5:6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

NIV
Psalm 5:6 you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest.

Good News Translation
Psalm 5: 6 You destroy all liars and despise violent, deceitful people.

 

[Whatever]

As the head question, does God love all people?

From 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.

The fact of eternal, conscious punishment doesn't seem to fit here.

Can anybody give me any benefit those who go to Hell receive.

Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[brightfame52]

Whatever

What does the word "abhor" mean?

to loathe, i.e. (morally) detest

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Who God hated had nothing to do with me, I didnt exist when God purposed to hate esau

But it has everything to do with what “hate” means there.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not possible unless you define love as if worldly, carnal, or fleshly love. That's not God.

I follow the definition of “love” in the shema prayer, “you shall love your God with all your soul, mind, strength.” What does it mean to you, however?

 

[Indentured Servant]

What does the word "abhor" mean?

Psalm 5:6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.

NIV
Psalm 5:6 you destroy those who tell lies. The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest.

Good News Translation
Psalm 5: 6 You destroy all liars and despise violent, deceitful people.

In Hebrew it means "to loathe," in Greek, "to be disgusted by" (often used in relation to an offensive smell, but metaphorically, it has been used to depict an unfavorable reaction to an idol/false God.).

Keep in mind, some translators use a single English word to translated two, three, or more words from another language. An outdated word like 'abhor,' can be used to replace exact translations because of its ambiguity, or, ability to be interpreted in different ways.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not possible unless you define love as if worldly, carnal, or fleshly love. That's not God.

God so loved the world that he gave His own son, whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. The "world" herein refers to inclusivity of God's saving grace - all tongues, tribes and nations have access to Jesus, God doesn't discriminate like men do. There is no Jew or Greek, free or bound, male or female, for all are one in Christ, that IS God.

 

[deepfaithpraise]

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.

Reading this, I'm reminded of how Augustine and Aquinas wrestled with similar questions about God's particular love for certain individuals while maintaining His universal benevolence. The Hebrew terms you've highlighted - "chashaq" and "yada" - are particularly revealing. They suggest a kind of intimate, preferential love that's actually quite analogous to human attachment patterns we study in psychology.

Think of it like this: just as a parent can love all their children while having unique, special bonds with each one, these texts seem to describe God's special covenantal relationship with Israel without negating His universal care for creation. The psychological parallel is striking - we know that healthy attachment actually enables, rather than prevents, broader capacity for love.

Historically these passages reflect the development of Jewish monotheism and their understanding of being a chosen people. It's fascinating how this concept of divine preference shaped not just religious thought but entire civilizations.

What I find most compelling is how these texts don't shy away from the reality of divine preference - they're remarkably honest about God having special relationships, much like we do in human relationships. Yet, as you noted, this doesn't negate a broader divine benevolence.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this. How do you see this divine preference playing out in modern religious experience?

 

[brightfame52]

This scripture and others like it prove that God does not Love all without exception Heb 12:6-8

6For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Rev 3:19

19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Notice, Christ says as many as I love..meaning He does not Love all without exception or this statement would be meaningless..

Those God Loves He chastens. Now does He chastens the whole world without exception ? No He does not.

There is a distinction between those God loves and chasten and the rest of the world He shall condemn 1 Cor 11:32

32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Now that portion of mankind that shall be condemned at the Judgment, were not Chastened by the Lord, and scripture says, as many as the Lord Loves they are chasten, and they will not be condemned with the world..

So this is more scripture testimony that God does not Love all men without exception 2

 

[brightfame52]

God so loved the world that he gave His own son, whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. The "world" herein refers to inclusivity of God's saving grace - all tongues, tribes and nations have access to Jesus, God doesn't discriminate like men do. There is no Jew or Greek, free or bound, male or female, for all are one in Christ, that IS God.

Thats about Gods Elect in the world from all tongues, tribes and nations

 

[Whatever]

Would love to hear your thoughts on this. How do you see this divine preference playing out in modern religious experience?

I'm not much into philosophy, and I don't really have any ideas about "modern religious experience."

 

[Whatever]

Who God hated had nothing to do with me, I didnt exist when God purposed to hate esau

You existed in God foreknowledge. Paul is simply showing in these passages that it is who God calls and chooses that makes the difference.

Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

That applies to us now 2,000 years later and for however many more years still have to go.