DOES GOD LOVE EVERYONE?

[Alfred Persson]

She didn't conceive (again.)
She conceived and bare Cain, and then she bare Abel.

That was interesting. It never occurred to me they "might" be twins. Aramaic Targums even have both born with twin sisters. Muslims give them names Aclima and Jumella.

Nothing in the Hebrew proves or disproves either interpretation.

Cain and Abel: It is possible Cain and Abel were twins, but the Bible does not explicitly indicate this. It depends on how much later Abel was born: “Eve became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.… Later she gave birth to his brother Abel” (Genesis 4:1–2). Was it minutes later or more than nine months later? The Bible does not say.-Got Questions Ministries. (2002–2013). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Logos Bible Software.

But you must have a "story" about them as "twins", otherwise you wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it.

So what's the "story"? I might agree they are twins if you have a good story to go with it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

She didn't conceive (again.)
She conceived and bare Cain, and then she bare Abel.

You haven't convinced me, but I agree its possible. In retrospect, she has something special to say about the firstborn Cain, but not Abel which "implies" you might be right.

But what is your reason for insisting they are twins? There must be a story or you wouldn't care.

 

[Tenchi]

You know why Jesus had to die T, and so do I.
Short:
God created man.
Knew man would sin.
God created a remedy.

This wasn't the question I asked you, actually. It was more precisely: If people were saved (in the NT sense that I described from Scripture) prior to the Atonement, why did Jesus have to die? My question wasn't about the broader matter of the purpose of the Atonement, which you answer above.

Jesus' death was valid from the beginning of man's creation since there is no time with God.

Can you cite Scripture that says "There is no time with God"? As I understand it, the moment events began to occur, God "entered" time. And so long as there is a linear progression of events, God remains "in" time. Of course, time is a more...flexible reality for God than it is for you and I, but the idea that there is no time at all for God, that He exists in a state where there is no progression of events whatever, is, it seems evident to me, an impossibility. I wouldn't, then, anchor the retroactive effect of the Atonement in the idea that time doesn't exist for God.

Persons were always saved even before Jesus' sacrifice, because His sacrifice was for all time and for all men.
His death DID open the gates of heaven, which were previously closed and the saved were waiting in Abraham's Bosom,
Luke 15.

In Scripture, Job was called "righteous" long before the Atonement had occurred, which confounds the idea that "there is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10).

Actually, in Romans 3:10, Paul was quoting from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 which, in context, were both speaking particularly of the "fool" who has said in his heart "there is no God." The Psalmist was not offering a sweeping generality about all of humanity in saying "there is none righteous," but only of those who are so foolish as to declare that God doesn't exist. Among these "fools" there is "none righteous, no, not one."

This contextual limitation on Romans 3:10 comports well with the several instances in God's word that I noted where people like Job, Anna, Joseph, or Cornelius were described as "good," or "righteous," or "blameless," etc. before the Atonement.

I understand what you're saying above, however I don't think we can say that they are not saved. This, to me at least, would mean that they're in hell, and certainly this is not true.

I'm not intending to suggest that these folk are in hell. Not at all. I was just challenging the notion that being born-again, being spiritually-regenerated in the NT sense of "saved," was necessary to being "good" or "righteous," as Calvinists like to assert. The idea that all people in every time and place are totally depraved, utterly incapable of righteous acts, doesn't align with practical experience nor with the record of God's word.

I believe Christ's Atonement was retroactive in its effect, saving OT saints in the same way it has you and I. But this was the case only at the time of the Atonement, not before. How would the effect of the Atonement exist before it had occurred, right? To my mind, appealing to a mysterious "God outside of time" explanation in order to assert such a thing doesn't do the job.

Also, as to your reason as to why Jesus had to die, that would also be the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. God still requires us to obey Him....but in the NC we now have the ability to do this whereas before it was totally a man's effort. This, in my opinion, is the biggest difference between the Old and New Covenant.

I think you're definitely on the right track. Like begets like, right? A cat begets a cat; a dog begets a dog; and so on. Therefore, in order to "beget" godliness in our living, we cannot rely on ourselves; only God can make us godly. And He does so by placing within us the Holy Spirit who imparts to us the "divine nature" and clothes us in the perfect righteousness of Christ. (Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 8:9-13, Romans 13:14, etc.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

That was interesting. It never occurred to me they "might" be twins. Aramaic Targums even have both born with twin sisters. Muslims give them names Aclima and Jumella.

Nothing in the Hebrew proves or disproves either interpretation.

Cain and Abel: It is possible Cain and Abel were twins, but the Bible does not explicitly indicate this. It depends on how much later Abel was born: “Eve became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.… Later she gave birth to his brother Abel” (Genesis 4:1–2). Was it minutes later or more than nine months later? The Bible does not say.-Got Questions Ministries. (2002–2013). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Logos Bible Software.

But you must have a "story" about them as "twins", otherwise you wouldn't have made such a big deal out of it.

So what's the "story"? I might agree they are twins if you have a good story to go with it.

There is the fact God marked Cain to distinguish him from Abel.
I've read this mark could have been a skin discoloration. Ever see people with white pigmentation?
I don't know but it is something to think about.
Glad you were receptive to the possibility.
I believe using our grey matter might matter when trying to understand Scripture.
I try to think things through.

 

[jeremiah1five]

This wasn't the question I asked you, actually. It was more precisely: If people were saved (in the NT sense that I described from Scripture) prior to the Atonement, why did Jesus have to die? My question wasn't about the broader matter of the purpose of the Atonement, which you answer above.

Before Christ people were 'kept' until faith should appear and that faith is the Holy Spirit who is faith.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Gal. 3:22–23.

Can you cite Scripture that says "There is no time with God"? As I understand it, the moment events began to occur, God "entered" time. And so long as there is a linear progression of events, God remains "in" time. Of course, time is a more...flexible reality for God than it is for you and I, but the idea that there is no time at all for God, that He exists in a state where there is no progression of events whatever, is, it seems evident to me, an impossibility. I wouldn't, then, anchor the retroactive effect of the Atonement in the idea that time doesn't exist for God.

God created TIME. He is above it, below it, in it, through it and has always been present in TIME. Whether "walking in the Garden," or coming down to destroy the earth with flood, or present in Mount Sinai, or in the person of three 'angels' that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or present in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle, or overshadowing His prophets to speak His Word to His people. Then came Christ:

1 GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Heb 1:1-3.

And now the Holy Spirit of God is present on the planet whose Ministry is to apply the salvation bought by the Son to God's Elect.

In Scripture, Job was called "righteous" long before the Atonement had occurred, which confounds the idea that "there is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10).

Job was considered 'righteous' because he was an obedient son of God and in this obedience offered sacrifices for him and his family daily. His sins were 'overlooked/passed over' until faith could appear. Although dead when this happen, he was kept by the grace and power of God. And it should be noted that although Job lost everything of value God did not kill his sons and daughters when the house collapsed. It was the servants that died.

Actually, in Romans 3:10, Paul was quoting from Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3 which, in context, were both speaking particularly of the "fool" who has said in his heart "there is no God." The Psalmist was not offering a sweeping generality about all of humanity in saying "there is none righteous," but only of those who are so foolish as to declare that God doesn't exist. Among these "fools" there is "none righteous, no, not one."
This contextual limitation on Romans 3:10 comports well with the several instances in God's word that I noted where people like Job, Anna, Joseph, or Cornelius were described as "good," or "righteous," or "blameless," etc. before the Atonement.

It isn't that the fool doesn't believe God doesn't exist (there is no God), it is meant that the fool KNOWS there is a God but through ignorance of God does not believe God concerns Himself in the affairs of man.

Job, Anna, Joseph, Cornelius were all Christians looking forward to the Promised Messiah. This is walking by faith and sight like the Israelites who through sight followed the cloud of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by night.

I'm not intending to suggest that these folk are in hell. Not at all. I was just challenging the notion that being born-again, being spiritually-regenerated in the NT sense of "saved," was necessary to being "good" or "righteous," as Calvinists like to assert. The idea that all people in every time and place are totally depraved, utterly incapable of righteous acts, doesn't align with practical experience nor with the record of God's word.

There is only ONE God and there is NONE like Him and He gives His glory to NO ONE, not even Adam or the angels He created. Having said that, consider that if there was a portion of angels that did not sin, they would have to have been 'kept' by the power of God while He allowed His created sinful angels to rebel. No man or woman ascended into heaven where God is because the atonement hadn't been made. Like the high priest who had to have his own sins atoned before he could enter the Holy of Holies in the presence of God. Now, having atonement applied to living elect believers to be absent in the body is to be present with the Lord. Enoch was taken alive, Elijah ascended into first heaven (atmosphere) and the only possible place they could have gone was Eden which is being preserved and guarded by an cherub with a flaming sword thus proving that cherubs guard holy earthly things and seraphim guard holy heavenly things (Isaiah).

I believe Christ's Atonement was retroactive in its effect, saving OT saints in the same way it has you and I. But this was the case only at the time of the Atonement, not before. How would the effect of the Atonement exist before it had occurred, right? To my mind, appealing to a mysterious "God outside of time" explanation in order to assert such a thing doesn't do the job.

The 'effect' of atonement existed before God created heaven, earth, and man. A lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world. THIS would be the 'heavenly" as everything on earth followed a pattern of the 'heavenly' especially in the building of the Ark (of the Covenant) and the Tabernacle.

I think you're definitely on the right track. Like begets like, right? A cat begets a cat; a dog begets a dog; and so on. Therefore, in order to "beget" godliness in our living, we cannot rely on ourselves; only God can make us godly. And He does so by placing within us the Holy Spirit who imparts to us the "divine nature" and clothes us in the perfect righteousness of Christ. (Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 6:19-20; Romans 8:9-13, Romans 13:14, etc.)

So, God ordained a cat mating with a cat of its own species, right? Why can't Christians apply this ordination of "after their kind" to the human sons of the godly Sethian line marrying and having offspring with the non-covenant daughters of men? Angels which are spirit beings (like unseen wind, especially since all the angels that sinned were cast down to hell delivered in chains of darkness awaiting judgment - 2 Pete 2:4) and of a different created order/species cannot marry and mate with another created order of species (humans) and have offspring. It violates the ordination God placed on and IN His creation.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 1 Cor. 15:39–41.

 

[Tenchi]

jeremiah1five:

Just so you know: I'm not going to respond to any of your posts to me since they never actually deal intelligently with what I write, but simply assert your own view. When it is evident to me that you're actually considering carefully what I've written and want to discuss my views, not merely assert your own, I'll be happy to engage with you. But not 'til then.

 

[Vinny37]

God's Love is a verb. A verb is a word that describes 'action.'
God so loved...that HE GAVE.

He gave Christ and Christ gave His love to the Church.
Christ did not give His love to the world of everyone, but only His Church, and His Church consists of those whose names are in the book of LIFE.
If God loves you God will save you.
If God does not love you God will not save you.
All according to the good pleasure of His will, of course.

Αγαπη is in fact a noun, but does have a verbal form, αγαπω.

I would say rather than he gave his son who became Christ, since unlike the noncarnate son, Christ is not beyond time-space.

Jhn.3:16 is clear that God loved the ‘world’ (κοσμος), at least those within it who could be ‘saved’, and Eph.5:25 is clear that Christ loved the ‘church’ (εκκλησια). Axiomatically, God’s love can only hit those in the ‘world’ before such recipients can enter the church. His love beckons into.

I disallow that all God loves will be loved into the church. Analogically, I can love a woman who refuses to marry me, and love (in another sense) women I do not wish to marry: The Four Loves (C S Lewis) is a good read on love-types. God will save all and only those into the church who 1# access the gospel and 2# accept the gospel, but his love is wider and deeper.

I allow that those God cannot love, he cannot love into the church.

There are various biblical meanings to the terms σωζω (verb) σωτηρια (noun). Yes, “God destined us to be...adopted children through Jesus Christ because of his love. This was according to his goodwill and plan” (CEB: Eph.1:5). That’s salvation into the church, and is one of the more profound meanings which we joyously celebrate.

 

[Alfred Persson]

There is the fact God marked Cain to distinguish him from Abel.
I've read this mark could have been a skin discoloration. Ever see people with white pigmentation?
I don't know but it is something to think about.
Glad you were receptive to the possibility.
I believe using our grey matter might matter when trying to understand Scripture.
I try to think things through.

I don't see the connection to being twins. Abel was dead when God "marked" Cain. I don't believe it had anything to do with skin color. The word elsewhere means "sign", not mark.

No one knows what this mark was, but Keil disputes it was a mark on his body.

The mark which God put upon Cain is not to be regarded as a mark upon his body, as the Rabbins and others supposed, but as a certain sign which protected him from vengeance, though of what kind it is impossible to determine.-Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 1, p. 72). Hendrickson.

The word is rendered "sign" elsewhere in Genesis. It could have been an amazing "sign" would appear whenever someone thought about killing Cain. A portal into hell perhaps? That would stop me from killing Cain!

Notice how the Hebrew word translated as "Mark" is used in Genesis and translated in the KJV:

0226 אוֹת 'owth {oth}
Meaning: 1) sign, signal 1a) a distinguishing mark 1b) banner 1c) remembrance 1d) miraculous sign 1e) omen 1f) warning 2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
Origin: probably from 0225 (in the sense of appearing); TWOT - 41a; n f
Usage: AV - sign(s) 60, token(s) 14, ensign(s) 2, miracles 2, mark 1 -Strong's Concordance


NKJ Gen. 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs (0226 אוֹת 'owth ) and seasons, and for days and years;
15 And the LORD said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark (0226 אוֹת 'owth ) on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
NKJ Gen. 9:12 And God said: "This is the sign (0226 אוֹת 'owth ) of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
NKJ Gen. 9:13 "I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign (0226 אוֹת 'owth ) of the covenant between Me and the earth.
NKJ Gen. 9:17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign (0226 אוֹת 'owth ) of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."
NKJ Gen. 17:11 "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign(0226 אוֹת 'owth ) of the covenant between Me and you.

 

[jeremiah1five]

jeremiah1five:

Just so you know: I'm not going to respond to any of your posts to me since they never actually deal intelligently with what I write, but simply assert your own view. When it is evident to me that you're actually considering carefully what I've written and want to discuss my views, not merely assert your own, I'll be happy to engage with you. But not 'til then.

I responded to your views.
And I submitted my understanding of the Scripture.
There you go.

 

[Tenchi]

I responded to your views.
And I submitted my understanding of the Scripture.
There you go.

You've not responded by addressing my statements from Scripture; you've just asserted your own views. This is a response, of sorts, but not a response that actually deals with what I've written. As such, I've no incentive to reply to the substance of your remarks.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Αγαπη is in fact a noun, but does have a verbal form, αγαπω.

I would say rather than he gave his son who became Christ, since unlike the noncarnate son, Christ is not beyond time-space.

Jhn.3:16 is clear that God loved the ‘world’ (κοσμος), at least those within it who could be ‘saved’, and Eph.5:25 is clear that Christ loved the ‘church’ (εκκλησια). Axiomatically, God’s love can only hit those in the ‘world’ before such recipients can enter the church. His love beckons into.

John 3:16 the word "love" is a verb and it is followed by an action "He gave."

"Became" Christ? Sounds like Arianism and Docetism.

Since sacrificing a lamb from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world, and since God cannot kill the Son, which is tantamount to something called suicide, a body must have had to be prepared for this sacrifice, and the appearance of the Angel of God (Christological "apparition") would be the Second Person of the Trinity in TIME before His actual birth as the God-man.
At least that's how I reason it.

I disallow that all God loves will be loved into the church. Analogically, I can love a woman who refuses to marry me, and love (in another sense) women I do not wish to marry: The Four Loves (C S Lewis) is a good read on love-types. God will save all and only those into the church who 1# access the gospel and 2# accept the gospel, but his love is wider and deeper.

Not the same love.
But since God's love is a verb (as well as a noun) and He gave we learn this same love through obedience. God never commanded Covenant Israel to love non-Covenant Gentiles nor has God commanded His Covenant Church to love anyone other than Covenant Church (and of course His Covenant Church to love Him), everything God has given the Church through the Holy Spirit (fruits, gifts, knowledge, etc.), are meant to be given to other Covenant believers for their edification and growth. They are not meant to be given to non-Covenant unbelievers (the world) for that would violate His command to not cast our pearls to swine of give that which is holy (God's love) to dogs (non-Covenant world.)

Accessing the gospel and accepting the gospel are not something anyone can do on his or her own. God must make them willing and this He does through intervention of the Holy Spirit in a person's life for without God salvation is impossible to man and Christ says so.

I allow that those God cannot love, he cannot love into the church.

More to the point...those God chose NOT to love.

There are various biblical meanings to the terms σωζω (verb) σωτηρια (noun). Yes, “God destined us to be...adopted children through Jesus Christ because of his love. This was according to his goodwill and plan” (CEB: Eph.1:5). That’s salvation into the church, and is one of the more profound meanings which we joyously celebrate.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You've not responded by addressing my statements from Scripture; you've just asserted your own views. This is a response, of sorts, but not a response that actually deals with what I've written. As such, I've no incentive to reply to the substance of your remarks.

That's your prerogative.

 

[Vinny37]

John 3:16 the word "love" is a verb and it is followed by an action "He gave."

"Became" Christ? Sounds like Arianism and Docetism.

Since sacrificing a lamb from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world, and since God cannot kill the Son, which is tantamount to something called suicide, a body must have had to be prepared for this sacrifice, and the appearance of the Angel of God (Christological "apparition") would be the Second Person of the Trinity in TIME before His actual birth as the God-man.
At least that's how I reason it.

Not the same love.
But since God's love is a verb (as well as a noun) and He gave we learn this same love through obedience. God never commanded Covenant Israel to love non-Covenant Gentiles nor has God commanded His Covenant Church to love anyone other than Covenant Church (and of course His Covenant Church to love Him), everything God has given the Church through the Holy Spirit (fruits, gifts, knowledge, etc.), are meant to be given to other Covenant believers for their edification and growth. They are not meant to be given to non-Covenant unbelievers (the world) for that would violate His command to not cast our pearls to swine of give that which is holy (God's love) to dogs (non-Covenant world.)

Accessing the gospel and accepting the gospel are not something anyone can do on his or her own. God must make them willing and this He does through intervention of the Holy Spirit in a person's life for without God salvation is impossible to man and Christ says so.

More to the point...those God chose NOT to love.

To repeat (sometimes needed), αγαπη is in fact a noun, but does have a verbal form, αγαπω. You replied that the verbal form in used in Jhn.3:16. Sure, and in 1 Jhn.4:16 it’s a noun form. That’s no rebuttal of my sentence. Did you seek to rebut my corrective? You later agree that “God’s love is a verb (as well as a noun).” Correct.

“Became Christ” is biblically true of God’s son. Beyond creation, in what some call the ontological trinity, God’s son is not ‘anointed’! Anointing is a setting aside for mission, something limited within creation. God’s son is only incarnate—and anointed man—within creation. I would query your understanding of Arianism and of Docetism.

Rv.13:8 might speak of names written before history’s start (see Rv.17:8), rather than the Lamb slaughtered from its start. The LEB/‌NKJV simply present the idea of the Lamb slain at the start. The NIV/‌NLT prefer the idea of the Lamb slain at the start, but allow the option. The CEV/‌NRSV prefer the idea that the Lamb wasn’t slain at the start, but allow the option. The CEB/‌ERV/‌NABRE/‌NCV simply present the idea that the Lamb wasn’t slain at the start. The NCV suggests that even from prehistory, some have refused to worship the Beast in his earlier manifestations. These versions cover the ideas that the Lamb’s death has feedback into God’s transcendence; that it potentially covers everyone from man’s start; that God’s fore-/trans-knowledge of the redeemed, implies his fore-/trans-knowledge of the Beast, as well as their security; that the battle between kingdoms goes back to man’s origins. I do not hold it axiomatic that the lamb was slain before the world’s (universe’s) foundation.

But that aside, of course God did not, could not, kill his son noncarnate. But he did hand over his son incarnate to Rome to kill, and his son (noncarnate) willingly became carnate to be killed, and as incarnate was willing to be killed (Jhn.10:30, where the Greek underlines their oneness of will/aim, not incidentally a oneness of personhood). The incarnation was, I think we agree, “a body…prepared for this sacrifice” (so Heb.10:5).

I’m unsure why you mention the Angel of God/Yahweh. I reserve judgement over whether such was a huiophany (appearance of God the son), and instead of calling Jesus a/the God-man, would call him the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of deity. As to whether he was anointed at conception, or at birth, I leave as moot, but we agree (I think) that the incarnation was a new mode of God the son within the universe.

No, of course not the same type of love. Hence my term ‘analogical’. (Incidentally, αγαπη was not the only Greek term for God’s love.) Yahweh also used husband/wife terms, including selection from alternative peoples: “…Yahweh set his affection on your ancestors and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations—as it is today” (NIV: Dt.10:15 adjusted).

I agree that “we learn this same love through obedience.” Good point.

The Sinai people, unlike the church, were never given evangelism, for it wasn’t needed. Now there is a church in which to meet God as father, it is needed as an invitation. We are commanded to love the people of the world—not the κοσμος as enmity against God (1 Jhn.2:15), but the people enslaved to that enmity (Jhn.3:16). Thus while our do-good focus is to be the church, that should not preclude the wider world (Gal.6:10). When we were evangelistically sinners, God loved us (Rm.5:8). “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (NIV: 1 Jhn.4:10). If he does he not love us before conversion, he could not love us into conversion. Even if my wife were not a Christian, still it would beholden me to love (αγαπω) her: Eph.5:25. Certainly the NT Letters focus on the family of faith (1 Jhn.4:7), but without precluding loving our neighbours both sides of the conversion fence.

On Mt.7:6, D A Carson noted that the two types of animal served together as a picture of what is vicious, unclean, and abominable. In short, that the text functions not to exclude love-based evangelism, “but, as Calvin rightly perceived, only to persons of any race who have given clear evidences of rejecting the gospel with vicious scorn and hardened contempt” (Carson’s Matthew (EBC) 2010:448).

Unlike you, I do not hold that God must make willing (pre-evangelism). That he can illuminate (by the spirit) those willing, yet generally will only do so if they have human evangelism (Rm.10:14), I take as axiomatic. And obviously, the only ultimate-salvation saving hand, is his. I disagree that God chooses not to love certain human beings, if by that you mean that of two morally identical people (I don’t buy into totally total depravity, BTW), God chooses one to ultimately bless, and one to ultimately damn: Dual Election. God our saviour desires all people to be saved (1 Tm.2:4), and whosoever will may come.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The original command of God to His Covenant people is for Covenant brethren to love Covenant brethren ONLY.
God NEVER instructed, guided, commanded, or even hinted that Covenant people of God love those not in Covenant.
NEVER.

But He does say this:

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 Jn 2:15–16.

God is not redundant. He is not repeating Himself.
He is NOT saying "love not the planet," He's saying "Love not the unbelievers in the world nor the THINGS in the world."

God also says this:

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. James 4:4.

You adulterers and adulteresses. Does it make sense from those that say we are to love unbelievers, but God says we can't be friends with them????

God says don't cast your pearls to swine (unclean/unsaved unbelievers) nor give that which is holy (such as God's love) to dogs (unclean/unsaved non-covenant unbelievers.)
When you do you are adulterers and adulteresses.
What God has given the believer as far as fruit and gifts and other graces is MEANT for other believers in Covenant with God. So, when a Christian disobeys God and gives that which is holy to unholy people, they not only commit adultery against God, but they commit adultery against other believers in the Church which is the Bride of Christ. Is the Bride of Christ a whore?
When Christ returns, He will also have to SUBDUE His Church as well as unbelievers.
His Church is out of control until He returns to put her in her place.
And then we'll ALL KNOW. (Well, not me. I already know.)

 

[TahitiRun]

The original command of God to His Covenant people is for Covenant brethren to love Covenant brethren ONLY.
God NEVER instructed, guided, commanded, or even hinted that Covenant people of God love those not in Covenant.
NEVER.

You're simply perpetuating what the Pharisees taught through their oral traditions. And, Jesus reprimanded them for doing so, here:

Mat 5:43 'Ye heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and shalt hate thine enemy;
Mat 5:44 but I—I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you,
Mat 5:45 that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous.
Mat 5:46 'For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same?
Mat 5:47 and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so?
Mat 5:48 ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.

But He does say this:

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 Jn 2:15–16.

God is not redundant. He is not repeating Himself.
He is NOT saying "love not the planet," He's saying "Love not the unbelievers in the world nor the THINGS in the world."

God also says this:

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. James 4:4.

You adulterers and adulteresses. Does it make sense from those that say we are to love unbelievers, but God says we can't be friends with them????

The concept of love does not necessarily imply friendship. You don't have to be friends with the world in-order to love your enemies. To love your enemies includes the following characteristics:

1Co 13:4 The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil,
1Co 13:6 rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth;
1Co 13:7 all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.
1Co 13:8 The love doth never fail

Rom 13:10 the love to the neighbour doth work no ill; the love, therefore, is the fulness of law.

God says don't cast your pearls to swine (unclean/unsaved unbelievers) nor give that which is holy (such as God's love) to dogs (unclean/unsaved non-covenant unbelievers.)
When you do you are adulterers and adulteresses.
What God has given the believer as far as fruit and gifts and other graces is MEANT for other believers in Covenant with God. So, when a Christian disobeys God and gives that which is holy to unholy people, they not only commit adultery against God, but they commit adultery against other believers in the Church which is the Bride of Christ. Is the Bride of Christ a whore?

The greatest fruit (or gift) of the Spirit we can give our enemies is love.

Gal 5:22 And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law;

1Co 13:13 and now there doth remain faith, hope, love—these three; and the greatest of these is love.

And that's what Jesus commands of us towards our enemies.

When Christ returns, He will also have to SUBDUE His Church as well as unbelievers.
His Church is out of control until He returns to put her in her place.
And then we'll ALL KNOW. (Well, not me. I already know.)

1Co 13:4 The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up,

 

[TahitiRun]

The unbeliever is only body and soul. (Matt. 10:28)

That's really not true. The spirit of man remained alive after the fall of Adam. The spirit of man never died. What died was man (or soul, Eze 18:4) "towards" his spirit. The spirit of man is called the "breath of spirit life" in Gen 7:22. It's the same spirit that was born of Spirit, recorded in Gen 2:7.

The word translated as "soul" in Mat 10:28 is ψυχην and simply means "breath", and by implication it's referring to the "breath of life" recorded in Gen. 2:7. The Gk. term is also simply used to express a person's "life", and is often translated as such (examples being Mat 10:39 and Mat 16:25).

The spirit of man (even for those without faith) is not dead. If the spirit of man was dead it would not be able to animate the human body, ie: the body would literally be "dead", man would no longer be a breathing "living being".

Nor would a dead or vacant spirit be able to function as the "candle of the Lord" that searches the inward parts of man (Pro 20:27). Nor would such a spirit be said to receive understanding from God (Job 32:8) or be able to return to God upon it's separation from the body (Ecc 12:7). All of these examples point to the spirit of man being alive, not dead.

The born-again believer is body, soul, and human spirit. (1 Thess. 5:23)

Yes, however your understanding of the term "soul" is rooted in Greek philosophy. Man does not have a soul, but rather man is soul (a living breathing being). And that soul is comprised of Body + Breath of Life (Gen 2:7).

 

[jeremiah1five]

You're simply perpetuating what the Pharisees taught through their oral traditions. And, Jesus reprimanded them for doing so, here:

Mat 5:43 'Ye heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and shalt hate thine enemy;
Mat 5:44 but I—I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you,
Mat 5:45 that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous.
Mat 5:46 'For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same?
Mat 5:47 and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so?
Mat 5:48 ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.

The original command to Israel from God is in Leviticus 19:18-19, which states this:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother [member of the same tribe] in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour [member of another tribe living next to them around the Tabernacle], and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [member of ANY tribe], but thou shalt love thy neighbour [member of another tribe living next to them around the Tabernacle] as thyself: I am the LORD.
Lev. 19:17–18.

Jesus did not change the Law. Any change in the Law would destroy the Law which is one reason it was written in stone. Because of the centuries-old animosity between the northern kingdom tribes and the southern kingdom tribes Jesus is taking Israel back to the original command and instructing them (Israel) to obey the command to love their Covenant brethren and neighbor.

The concept of love does not necessarily imply friendship. You don't have to be friends with the world in-order to love your enemies. To love your enemies includes the following characteristics:

1Co 13:4 The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil,
1Co 13:6 rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth;
1Co 13:7 all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.
1Co 13:8 The love doth never fail

Paul wrote to believers already saved and in Covenant with God. And in the Church, there was evidence of adversaries and enemies, especially between "Jewish" believers and Gentile believers. Then there was animosity between those that said they were of Peter, or Apollos, or of Paul. Then there was the animosity between Christians who spoke in tongues or exhibited their spiritual gifts like babies and didn't allow others to express theirs. These were some of the reasons Paul wrote to Corinthian Church. He did not write to unbelievers.

Rom 13:10 the love to the neighbour doth work no ill; the love, therefore, is the fulness of law.

The greatest fruit (or gift) of the Spirit we can give our enemies is love.

Gal 5:22 And the fruit of the Spirit is: Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 meekness, temperance: against such there is no law;

1Co 13:13 and now there doth remain faith, hope, love—these three; and the greatest of these is love.

And that's what Jesus commands of us towards our enemies.

1Co 13:4 The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up,

Again, Paul writes to believers in Covenant with God and there were a host of problems in the early Church when you put "Jewish" believers and Gentile believers together in a new thing God was doing on the earth. Enemies were made. century-old animosities were existing especially when "Jewish" believers had in mind that their Messiah and Christ was prophesied to sit on David's throne thereby relegating Gentile believers to second-class status because of it. They were wrong and Paul speaks on these animosities and grudges and adversarial relationships in all his letters to believers in Christ.

 

[jeremiah1five]

That's really not true. The spirit of man remained alive after the fall of Adam. The spirit of man never died. What died was man (or soul, Eze 18:4) "towards" his spirit. The spirit of man is called the "breath of spirit life" in Gen 7:22. It's the same spirit that was born of Spirit, recorded in Gen 2:7.

The soul is comprised of the mind [intellect - which is where repentance occurs], the senses, emotions, conscience, and will. Without the soul man cannot communicate naturally with man and after Adam's sin the method of communication between God and man changed.
God created man a three-fold being of body, soul, and human spirit (not Holy Spirit.)

The word "nephesh" which in the KJV is translated as "soul" is also translated depending on the context of the Greek sentence construct as:
soul 475 times
life 117
person 29
mind 15
heart 15
creature 9
body 8
himself 8
yourselves 6
dead 5
will 4
desire 4
man 3
themselves 3
any 3
appetite 2
miscellaneous translations 47 times
[Total Count: 753 times]
The human spirit which allowed for communication with God died "in the day" Adam ate of the Tree. Everyone born from Adam and Eve are born dichotomy, or two-fold: body and soul. When someone becomes born again God creates a new human spirit in the person and that person is restored to the three-fold image of God - body, soul, human spirit. There are no three-fold believers in "hell."
The breath of life is God's Spirit. It belongs to God and God can take His breath from man anytime He wants.

The word translated as "soul" in Mat 10:28 is ψυχην and simply means "breath", and by implication it's referring to the "breath of life" recorded in Gen. 2:7. The Gk. term is also simply used to express a person's "life", and is often translated as such (examples being Mat 10:39 and Mat 16:25).

The Greek word is "psyche" [Strong's #5590] and it is translated as:
English Words used in KJV:
soul 58
life 40
mind 3
heart 1
heartily + <G1537> 1
not tr 2
[Total Count: 105]

Strong's from <G5594> (psucho); breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstract or concrete (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from <G4151> (pneuma), which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from <G2222> (zoe), which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew <H5315> (nephesh), <H7307> (ruwach) and <H2416> (chay))

The spirit of man (even for those without faith) is not dead. If the spirit of man was dead it would not be able to animate the human body, ie: the body would literally be "dead", man would no longer be a breathing "living being".

As above in first response.

Nor would a dead or vacant spirit be able to function as the "candle of the Lord" that searches the inward parts of man (Pro 20:27). Nor would such a spirit be said to receive understanding from God (Job 32:8) or be able to return to God upon it's separation from the body (Ecc 12:7). All of these examples point to the spirit of man being alive, not dead.

The candle is man. Christ is the light or flame.
A person that dies the soul goes upward to God if they are a believer, and the soul goes downward to the grave with the body if they are not believers. Since the passage of time is not evident when an unbeliever dies it seems to them as an instant upon death to stand before the judgment.

Yes, however your understanding of the term "soul" is rooted in Greek philosophy. Man does not have a soul, but rather man is soul (a living breathing being). And that soul is comprised of Body + Breath of Life (Gen 2:7).

The Scripture is not Greek philosophy. The Scripture is the Word of GOD and He doesn't confuse us by giving us Greek philosophy in His Word. He may speak of it but it is God's Word that drives our belief's.

 

[TahitiRun]

The original command to Israel from God is in Leviticus 19:18-19, which states this:

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother [member of the same tribe] in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour [member of another tribe living next to them around the Tabernacle], and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [member of ANY tribe], but thou shalt love thy neighbour [member of another tribe living next to them around the Tabernacle] as thyself: I am the LORD.
Lev. 19:17–18.

Of course. That's why I highlighted their oral tradition to "hate your enemy". It was not written in the law to hate your enemies, even though that is what the Pharisees taught.

Jesus did not change the Law. Any change in the Law would destroy the Law which is one reason it was written in stone. Because of the centuries-old animosity between the northern kingdom tribes and the southern kingdom tribes Jesus is taking Israel back to the original command and instructing them (Israel) to obey the command to love their Covenant brethren and neighbor.

Again, of course Jesus did not change the law. Nor did I imply He was trying to. Jesus reprimanded the Pharisee's oral traditions. Jesus did this often, examples found in Mar 7:8, Mar 7:9 and Mar 7:13.

Paul wrote to believers already saved and in Covenant with God. And in the Church, there was evidence of adversaries and enemies, especially between "Jewish" believers and Gentile believers. Then there was animosity between those that said they were of Peter, or Apollos, or of Paul. Then there was the animosity between Christians who spoke in tongues or exhibited their spiritual gifts like babies and didn't allow others to express theirs. These were some of the reasons Paul wrote to Corinthian Church. He did not write to unbelievers.

Yes, it is written to believers. However, the definition of love is still applicable to what Jesus commanded.

Again, Paul writes to believers in Covenant with God and there were a host of problems in the early Church when you put "Jewish" believers and Gentile believers together in a new thing God was doing on the earth. Enemies were made. century-old animosities were existing especially when "Jewish" believers had in mind that their Messiah and Christ was prophesied to sit on David's throne thereby relegating Gentile believers to second-class status because of it. They were wrong and Paul speaks on these animosities and grudges and adversarial relationships in all his letters to believers in Christ.

Yes, and Jesus' words to "love your enemies" were directed to Israel and Judah. And they (Israel and Judah) were to love their enemies, as Jesus commanded. Paul simply describes to us what the word "love" means.

The reason I quoted Paul was to demonstrate to you what love is. It doesn't imply friendship with the world.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Of course. That's why I highlighted their oral tradition to "hate your enemy". It was not written in the law to hate your enemies, even though that is what the Pharisees taught.

Again, of course Jesus did not change the law. Nor did I imply He was trying to. Jesus reprimanded the Pharisee's oral traditions. Jesus did this often, examples found in Mar 7:8, Mar 7:9 and Mar 7:13.

Yes, it is written to believers. However, the definition of love is still applicable to what Jesus commanded.

Yes, and Jesus' words to "love your enemies" were directed to Israel and Judah. And they (Israel and Judah) were to love their enemies, as Jesus commanded. Paul simply describes to us what the word "love" means.

The reason I quoted Paul was to demonstrate to you what love is. It doesn't imply friendship with the world.

And it doesn't imply love with the world of unbelievers, either.