God of the Bible is not all loving.

[Mr. G Lee]

This is the problem with the ideal of unconditional love so heavily promoted by modern day Christians (which Padre is obviously responding to, since the ideal of unconditional love is found nowhere in the Bible). It's most obvious with children and parents, where the child does something wrong, the parents punishes them, and the child screams that the parent doesn't actually love them because of the punishment.

That is where it becomes confusing Not unconditional but non failing .

Remember God is love and not that he can but is the very essence. His name is jealous seeing he owns all things but his love is not Love actively is long sufferings so that the next attribute Love is kind and as another condition kindness does not envy ,it does in the end of those conditions. . rejoice with His truth, as it is written

 

[Free]

Well, there is always annihilation.

There is, but that is problematic.
Something to consider, taken from an article written by J. P. Moreland, titled "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?":

"The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant and unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.

Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.

The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the traditional view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism" (The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 1292).

I think that is a very strong argument against annihilationism.

 

[rstrats]

...if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the traditional view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism" (The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 1292).

Depending on the goings-on in quarantine, I'm not sure the individual there would agree with that.

 

[Free]

Depending on the goings-on in quarantine, I'm not sure the individual there would agree with that.

They might not, but what they believe doesn't matter. What matters is what God says, which is that every person is made in his image, and although that image is now marred, each person still has intrinsic value. Of course, it would seem that each person in hell would agree with that, having come to see the truth. The result will be to live forever in the deepest regret and self-loathing for not believing and or in total bitterness towards God. That, I believe, is the eternal torment, during and after any physical punishment has ended.

Luk 12:45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk,
Luk 12:46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful.
Luk 12:47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.
Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (ESV)

Believers are said to receive degrees of reward and so here it seems unbelievers will receive degrees of physical punishment. I'll grant that it may not be physical, but it will be terrible. Yet, they will be in hell forever in torment, hence my conclusion.

 

[GodsGrace]

So, are you suggesting that beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them?

Of course.
Anyone that desires to be saved, will be saved if they obey God.
Some come to believe in God because of some experience that convinces them that God exists - they wake up to God's existence and begin to be disciples.

Others come to God through studying. Like the cold case detective that studied the NT and came to believe.

Others are just determined to be followers of God and learn from Jesus.

Not those who cry Lord, Lord will enter into the Kingdom of God,
but those that do the will of My Father.
Matthew 7:21

 

[rstrats]

Of course.

Perhaps you can help me, then. I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have, and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously choose to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I choose to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores away his gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and If ever captured has to grant three wishes to the person who captures him.


So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, choose to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

 

[Hopeful 2]

When does someone become "born of God"?

Men become "born of God" when they are raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)
So, they are born again during their baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins. (Rom 6:3-7)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Perhaps you can help me, then. I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have, and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously choose to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I choose to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores away his gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and If ever captured has to grant three wishes to the person who captures him.


So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, choose to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

Do you have 2000 years of written testimony concerning leprechauns ?
Was the arrival of the lep's presaged thousands of years earlier ?
Has any man ever told you what a leprechaun did for him ?
Do lep's act on your behalf every day ?

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps you can help me, then. I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have, and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously choose to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I choose to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores away his gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and If ever captured has to grant three wishes to the person who captures him.


So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, choose to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

I'd reply but your sarcasm if a total turn off so I think it's not possible to have a decent conversation with you.
I thought we were discussing a serious matter....
apparently you don't think so.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Would you say that Jesus is the ultimate revelation from God?

Got to be in the top 10 in my opinion ... ... maybe nature (Romans 1) is number one for us ...subjective ... could be one's parent I suppose though the parent would be the instrument of God.

I've noticed that the reformed use a lot of scripture from the OT when revelation was not yet complete.

I hadn't noticed.
Is revelation ever complete? Maybe you mean scripture.

Would you say that Jesus demonstrated no love for humankind?

1. Love can be measured by the amount of favor; agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love.
2. God's Love is a bond of unity (Col. 3:14)
3. Habakkuk 1:13b You cannot look on wickedness with favor (where favor is love)

Now that we have a definition of love (favor) and some aspects of love as a foundation we can go to your question.
Since the elect are In Christ and God sees them like Christ: John 17:22 I have given to them the glory and honor which You have given Me, that they may be one, just as We are one ... this seems to fit the definition of love to the utmost. Being In Christ satisfies Col. 3:14 and since the elect's sins are imputed to Christ we have no problem with Habakkuk 1:13 contradicting God's love for them.
Some call this the love of complacency

Let's do the same analysis for those who are not elect ....
Hmmm, definitely not favored as they will spend eternity in Hell. They obviously have little bond of unity with God (Col 3:14) and God does not favor them according to Habakkuk 1:13. That being said, I believe God's loves (favors) the unelect to a small degree as indicated by: Matthew 5:45b for He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and makes the rain fall upon the upright and the wrongdoers [alike]. But this is a minimal measure of love at best; wrath and hate being their major portion.
Some call this small measure of love the love of beneficence.

Loving your neighbor is very relevant to this thread.
God made us in His image.

I've rarely met someone that can define using biblical sources the definition of "made in His image" and high jack is meaning to fit their agenda. It is a concept people don't understand. To make things worse, the image was corrupted by Adam's sin. I still don't see the relevance ... unless you are saying our love is the same as God's love because we were/are made in His image. Too many assumptions ... and if I'm right, you are not applying "made in His image" properly. I don't think you can define it using scripture; few can.

God IS love.

Agreed .. but unlike you.... I have defined what LOVE means using the bible ... most people don't know what it means even. Give a biblical definition or use my definition.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor the same way that God loves all of His creation.

While Jesus taught us to love our neighbor ... there is no verse saying we are to do it the same way as God. God is infinite; man is finite ... man can't do anything the SAME AS GOD (maybe both know 1+1 =2)
Aside: Loving our neighbor is another tangent that few can define if questioned more deeply as whatever definition they put forth will be 'wanting' and/or 'torn apart with questioning' IMO.

Do YOU love your neighbor?

Not relevant to the thread. You probably define it differently than scripture so we would be talking past each other due to different frames of reference.

Are You made in the image of God?

Not relevant to the thread. You probably define it differently than scripture so we would be talking past each other due to different frames of reference.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Maybe not hell, but Revelation 20:15 does say that He will be casting them into the lake of fire.

No, it doesn't say "He will". In Rev. 20 Satan and his angels are cast into the lake of fire, no "children of God" whose name are written on the Book of Life are included, only worshippers of Satan and his angels end up in there.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, it doesn't say "He will". In Rev. 20 Satan and his angels are cast into the lake of fire, no "children of God" whose name are written on the Book of Life are included, only worshippers of Satan and his angels end up in there.

That is right, no child of God will be tossed into the lake of fire.
Just the devil and his minions, and the sinners of the earth.

 

[grumix8]

Do not Judge God he is loving, we are his children we do not judge him.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is right, no child of God will be tossed into the lake of fire.
Just the devil and his minions, and the sinners of the earth.

The most tragic part is that Satan will be worshipped as God. You know, in Islam, Allah is just an alternative spelling of Elohim. When Hamas terrorists slaughter innocent people including babies, that's taking God's name in vain, they are serving a counterfeit who kills, steals and destroys.

 

[rstrats]

That is right, no child of God will be tossed into the lake of fire.
Just the devil and his minions, and the sinners of the earth.

And who will be doing the tossing of the sinners into the lake of fire?

 

[rstrats]

No, it doesn't say "He will". In Rev. 20 Satan and his angels are cast into the lake of fire, no "children of God" whose name are written on the Book of Life are included, only worshippers of Satan and his angels end up in there.

Verse 15 - "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." Who do you think did the casting?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Verse 15 - "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." Who do you think did the casting?

"Anyone not found written in the Book of Life" are Satan's children, not God's. They've taken the mark of the beast as their pledge of allegiance.

 

[rstrats]

"Anyone not found written in the Book of Life" are Satan's children, not God's. They've taken the mark of the beast as their pledge of allegiance.

But who casts them into the lake of fire?

 

[miamited]

But who casts them into the lake of fire?

The same one who caused them to be born.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Got to be in the top 10 in my opinion ... ... maybe nature (Romans 1) is number one for us ...subjective ... could be one's parent I suppose though the parent would be the instrument of God.

Could you get serious?
Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God.
You're going to debate this?

I hadn't noticed.
Is revelation ever complete? Maybe you mean scripture.

I'd say that revelation is complete.
Islam (or should I say Muhammad) didn't think so.
And look where it's gotten us.
Ditto for the mormons and JWs who think God was still revealing Himself in the 800's.

Perhaps PERSONAL revelation is ongoing - if it's biblical of course.

1. Love can be measured by the amount of favor; agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love.
2. God's Love is a bond of unity (Col. 3:14)
3. Habakkuk 1:13b You cannot look on wickedness with favor (where favor is love)

Now that we have a definition of love (favor) and some aspects of love as a foundation we can go to your question.
Since the elect are In Christ and God sees them like Christ: John 17:22 I have given to them the glory and honor which You have given Me, that they may be one, just as We are one ... this seems to fit the definition of love to the utmost. Being In Christ satisfies Col. 3:14 and since the elect's sins are imputed to Christ we have no problem with Habakkuk 1:13 contradicting God's love for them.
Some call this the love of complacency

Glory and honor are not love.
God said to HONOR your parents...not to love them.
although love CAN be a factor if a person is correct in their behavior towards others.

Let's do the same analysis for those who are not elect ....
Hmmm, definitely not favored as they will spend eternity in Hell. They obviously have little bond of unity with God (Col 3:14) and God does not favor them according to Habakkuk 1:13. That being said, I believe God's loves (favors) the unelect to a small degree as indicated by: Matthew 5:45b for He makes His sun rise on the wicked and on the good, and makes the rain fall upon the upright and the wrongdoers [alike]. But this is a minimal measure of love at best; wrath and hate being their major portion.
Some call this small measure of love the love of beneficence.

Whoever ends up in hell will be due to their own decision.
They send themselves there -
Even the reformed to not want to believe that God is the CAUSE of evil, so it must be a pretty serious matter to believe that God causes evil----which, of course, He does not.

I've rarely met someone that can define using biblical sources the definition of "made in His image" and high jack is meaning to fit their agenda. It is a concept people don't understand. To make things worse, the image was corrupted by Adam's sin. I still don't see the relevance ... unless you are saying our love is the same as God's love because we were/are made in His image. Too many assumptions ... and if I'm right, you are not applying "made in His image" properly. I don't think you can define it using scripture; few can.

I started a thread on this in Theology.
Check it out.
We are made in God's image in many ways.

Agreed .. but unlike you.... I have defined what LOVE means using the bible ... most people don't know what it means even. Give a biblical definition or use my definition.

That's not what I'm here for.

While Jesus taught us to love our neighbor ... there is no verse saying we are to do it the same way as God.

Gee FF. I don't think we can do ANYTHING the way God does.
I hope you agree.

God is infinite; man is finite ... man can't do anything the SAME AS GOD (maybe both know 1+1 =2)
Aside: Loving our neighbor is another tangent that few can define if questioned more deeply as whatever definition they put forth will be 'wanting' and/or 'torn apart with questioning' IMO.

Hmmm. Every Christian should know what it means to love our neighbor.
Maybe you're just lacking faith in your fellow Christians.

Not relevant to the thread. You probably define it differently than scripture so we would be talking past each other due to different frames of reference.

Not relevant to the thread. You probably define it differently than scripture so we would be talking past each other due to different frames of reference.

Seems we define everything differently.
And I think you've derailed my whole point.
Will check.