So this was originally supposed to be a comment on John's prior post regarding God's love towards the non-elect but it was too big -.-
This is therefore primarily to John, although you can feel free to read as well even though I can practically guarantee that you'll disagree with me *sigh*
Anyway here it is :)
LOL you had to, didnt you? I actually like this post cos thinking through your arguments kinda reinforces what I believed all along :P
My major issue with all this is still the same. How can God love AND hate someone at the same time?
Now granted it might just be a paradox that we can't fathom, but i think that should be a worst case scenario...we should only assume a paradox when there is sufficient biblical evidence to suggest that it MUST be a paradox. And I still haven't seen solid biblical evidence to suggest that it must.
I was actually thinking about this recently. I realised that the problem that my mind has with reconciling this paradox is that love and hate are two opposing extremes. Someone might say that God's justice and mercy are CONTRASTING, but love and hate are OPPOSING.
Think about it...imagine you meet a person for the first time. For what ever reason you hate this person. But then they do something nice and you begin to like them a bit more. As you start to love them, what happens to your former hatred? It LESSENS. It cant possibly remain at its former intensity because that is what loving someone more means! Hating them less! lol
This is my issue. How can God love AND hate at the same time. His love would diminish his hate and his hate would diminish his love!
But anyway Im gonna go through your post and point out the problems I see.
First of all your analogy of the father whose son kills his wife falls apart because non-believers are not children of God but are in fact children of the devil. Therefore, God is under no obligation to love them. If you mean sonship in terms of Him being the creator and us being the creation, then let me ask you this. After Lucifer and the demons fell did God love them? According to your analogy he must. And i dont think you believe He does.
Now you said:
"A person who believes that God hates and does not love the wicked people of this world will read this and say that God showed love for Christians while they were still sinners because and only because He knew that they would be the ones that Christ would be in, and change. This view however, limits God and takes this verse out of context."
I'm assuming you got this from me lol but I think your misrepresenting my view. You think that I believe God can only love people after he has decided that He will send Christ to die for us. You're right in a way, but you have the order wrong. I believe God CHOOSES to love the elect first. But if God must hate sinners then He cannot continue to love us the way we are. It would go against His very nature! Therefore what will inevitable result from his choice to love us is to CHANGE us. In other words, He loves us too much to leave us the way we are. Hence, Christ and the cross.
Remember, were reformed lol. Arminians have no problem with God loving non christians and still seeing them go to hell, because ultimately theres nothing he can do about it! But we don't believe that. If God truly loves, He will save. Remember, love is an action, not just a feeling.
You then use 1 John 4 to claim that the word "might" means that the "us" in the same verse means everyone in the world. I think thats a HUGE stretch especially considering that IF youre right, then that will be the one and ONLY time in the whole chapter that the words "us" or "we" refer to the whole world and not just believers.
Yes, "might" indicates a possibility. Christ died to make it possible for us to be saved. That in no way indicates that he died for everyone. A possibility does not negate a certainty. I think thats the mistake you made. If anything this text supports limited atonement because John claims Christ died so that WHO might be saved? "WE"! All you have to do is read verses 5 and 6 and you'll see the clear contrast between WE and THEY.
In regards to John 3:16 you said:
"It also goes further than that though, in that "the world" means humanity in general; because Christ came and died so that anyone could actually get into heaven, in all of history, and Jesus was here explaining the born again process to Nicodemus, not explaining the idea of Jews and Gentiles. Also, go on to verse 17 and the context of using "the world" to mean simply "all nations" does not make entire sense. This view of all nations is seen in this scripture, but is not limited to this, for it is explaining how God loved humanity in general."
You infer that the term world here means humanity in general but you don't show how. You then say in context taking world to mean "all nations" does not make sense, but again you don't show why.
I personally agree with you that world means humanity in general here, but in the sense of "all nations" more than "all individuals". I get this by simply reading a few verses prior to verse 16. If you read verses 14-15 and you'll see that Jesus is discussing ISRAEL, the nation. He then contrasts Israel with the WORLD in verse 16. Given this its very easy to see how the word "world" here refers to "all nations and not JUST Israel".
In regards to 1 Timothy 2:4, the interpretation is quite easy if you read the verse in context. Here's what Paul says (verses 1-4):
"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Now its very easy to read this and say, "oh well God clearly wants EVERYONE INDIVIDUALLY to be saved". But remember that Paul's point here is not limited/unlimited atonement or anything like that. If you read it properly he's saying we should pray for kings and all people in authority. Now this wasn't a small deal coming from the guy who had at this point been abused and imprisoned by such authorities on several occasions. But Paul gives a reason as to why he wants believers to pray for such people. Look at verse 3. Praying for kings, etc. is good and acceptable in the sight of Jesus. Why? Look at verse 4 now given the established context. God desires ALL men to be saved. Not just the poor. And not just Israelites. But from ALL nations and from ALL classes. He desires that the elect be a truly diverse group of people! Diverse-city babbbyyy haha!
Don't get me wrong. I believe that God can act lovingly towards the non-elect, as is indicated in Matthew 5:43-45, but this does not mean that he loves them. In fact I believe his loving care towards non Christians is meant to emphasis and magnify His love for the elect. What do I mean by that? Imagine that you own a hotel and your best friend calls in a favour and asks you to let a friend of theirs stay at your hotel for a discount price. Now you dont love their friend (you dont even know them). But out of great love for your friend you set their friend up in the nicest suite you have completely free of charge. In fact you make sure they get the finest treatment while they stay with you because you love your friend so much and want to please them by making their friend happy.
Now not every aspect of this analogy matches up with God's relationship to us but the principle is the same. Since God's loves the elect SOOO much, often even the non-elect get the benefits of this love (eg. he causes the sun to rise on them as well as believers). Hence God is loving towards humanity to show just how much the ELECT humans mean to him. Think about it. If God had not chosen to send Christ to die for sinners, but instead let people live out their lives in sin and then die to face eternity in hell, do you really think he would still give them all the joys of the earth that people experience today (eg. a plethora of different foods, beautiful sights, the sun rising and setting, etc)? I doubt it.
Moreover, I believe God is loving towards the non-elect (and to us before we were saved) in order to provide us (who don't know who will be saved and who wont) with an example of how we should love all people indiscriminantly. Remember that although we are to follow God's example in some things, were are not to do EVERYTHING that God does. For example we can't kill or judge people whenever we feel like. Only God can do that because He is God! He is UNIQUE. So just because God commands us to love everyone, does not mean that therefore He must also love everyone.
Anyway I think that covers it all. In case I sounded at all conceited or cocky in this post, i'll say again that I don't know everything (it is hard to admit :P) and I'd actually like to be proven wrong in this area cos its lonely not having anyone agree with you :(
I'll leave you with this question.
Does God love those who are in hell?
If he DOES, then how is he showing it, since love is an action and not just an attitude towards something? By torturing and exacting his wrath upon them for all their crimes? Thats a strange love. It's just. But it's not love...at least not a love for them.
If He DOESN'T then what causes him to suddenly switch from loving and hating them while their alive to now only just hating them once their dead? Why would being alive or dead determine God's love for you?
Anyway have fun with this :) I know its ridiculously long
Peace
Man, I was gonna watch your thing on twitter about free will, but now this came up :P
ReplyDeleteI want to note firstly that this was not a rebuttal against your previous post, I actually liked that and I wrote my post purely because I was thinking about it (although knowing you would reply like this lol). And also I think you were thinking that I was totally against Jesus dying for only the elect, when I was trying to say that I would not take sides on that idea, but it didn't really matter:
"The idea that Jesus only died for the elect (which I am not sure if I believe) is NOT because the elect are the only ones that were loved (in fact this creates a paradox in the famous John 3:16; because He loved us He sent His Son, not He loved us because He sent His Son), but because God is omniscient and knows who will accept Jesus, so why punish Jesus for for those who will receive punishment for themselves? It has nothing to do with His love for the elect and hatred for the wicked."
Examples of loving but hating someone at the same time:
- Father's son kills father's wife.
- Wife of 25 years cheats on you.
- A teenager head over heals for a boy, but the boy is mean to her.
- Any time best friends or girl/boyfriends argue.
Point is, I did not mean that father and son thing to symbolize God and us, simply put I was showing situations where people can love and hate at the same time. If we can do that; love and hate at the same time, then couldn't God?
"...He loves us too much to leave us the way we are. Hence, Christ and the cross." He loves the elect or the world? If you say elect then there is the paradox I mention in my post i.e. God loves the elect so He sends Jesus to die for them, when it was His sending of Jesus that caused Him to love them. If you say the world, then you agree with me :)
I think we should keep it short for now lol :P
Hey John...youre fat...but onto the issue at hand :)
ReplyDeleteYeah see the main problem i have with your whole loving and hating at the same time thing is that in none of the situations you described does anyone actually hate and love at the same time...i know they are just examples and you dont mean them to be definitive but im gonna go thru em quick
father and son: i personally cant answer this cos i never been in this situation but i still dont think a father would hate his child...he would be extremely upset and angry but not hate
wife of 25 years cheats on you: you would still love her at first but i think that love would eventually be REPLACED by hate...(not that it should but yeh thats probs what would happen)...and if not replaced by hate, it would be mixed with hurt.
teenager in love: yeah she just loves him...hes mean to her but she wouldnt hate him...if anything shed just be more hurt by how he treats her BECAUSE of how much she loves him
and the last one is just silly...i have never hated a friend even through the worst argument and i highly doubt you would say that every time you and yen yen argue, that you hate her :S
So my point is loving and hating someone at the same time not only does not make sense but actually never happens in reality...but heres the thing John...you and i both know that it doesnt matter if it makes sense if thats how the bible says it is...it just might be beyond our understanding...but the thing is, if the bible says that God hates some people but then says He loves EVERYONE, then before we say BOTH are true (and hence its a paradox) we must say, is there a correct way to interpret the confusing passages so that this issue makes logical sense.
Thats what im trying to do here and at the moment im satisfied with my interpretation because all the biblical data is now coherent and non-contradictory...and if you can point out how my interpretation of those passages are off, then its fine but i think youre just jumping straight to accepting the paradox rather than adjusting your interpretation of scripture.
You get what i mean?
Well I don't see how a father could not hate his son after the son killed his father's wife. I mean seriously, put yourself in that situation, you get home from work and everything is all good until you see a bullet through your wife's head. All the memories start coming back of all the love that you have given her and you start to cry. Then to make matters worse, you find out your son did it, and he is not remorseful. Memories start coming back about how you and your wife cared for and loved him beyond what you ever thought you were capable to do. Don't tell me you would not hate that person for their betrayal, for ripping out your heart, but at the same time feel helpless because as much as you wish to rip off his head, you know you could never hurt your son.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if you don't agree with that... well whatever, that isn't my main argument and that isn't using bible so you can always just say "yeh I don't agree lol" :P
So I wanna go to this paragraph:
"I'm assuming you got this from me lol but I think your misrepresenting my view. You think that I believe God can only love people after he has decided that He will send Christ to die for us. You're right in a way, but you have the order wrong. I believe God CHOOSES to love the elect first. But if God must hate sinners then He cannot continue to love us the way we are. It would go against His very nature! Therefore what will inevitable result from his choice to love us is to CHANGE us. In other words, He loves us too much to leave us the way we are. Hence, Christ and the cross."
Correct me if I am wrong, but is your thinking; God loved the elect, and couldn't love the elect while they were in sin, so He sent Jesus to die for them?
I do not believe I am adjusting scripture, I was actually just reading and came across scripture that blew my mind and my understanding. If I have the wrong interpretation, I will accept that, but I did not go looking for scripture to support my view. I do not believe that loving and hating at the same time is a paradox, but I also believe that neither you or I can be the judges on that. I think that by the end of this debate, we will see if it is possible for God to love and hate at the same time, and that will prove if it really is a paradox or not.
Thats the thing...I think you're exalting the love a man has for his wife, but you're not considering the perhaps equally immense love that a man would have for his child...again this is something we wont know cos not only have we not in been in this situation we also dont even have kids...you gotta remember that parents love their kids like CRAZY like we cant understand as well (or so my parents tell me -.-)
ReplyDeleteOkay ill try lay out my view as clearly as i can, cos i probs havent done it properly yet:
In eternity past, God chose to make man, knowing they would fall and become sinners; but at this point he elected his people and chose to love them (ROMANS 8:29-30). Now in order for his love towards them to be justified (cos God cant love those who do evil (Ps. 5:5), just like he cant love evil), He had to deal with their sin, through the cross. Therefore he sent jesus to die.
You seem to take that verse in Romans to mean that God loved us when we were sinners and that was why he died for us...in other words you think the order of his mental operations in a sense is important? Im not sure how that goes against my view...I take the Romans passage just to show how much God loves us and how we can have a deep assurance of our salvation since God accomplished everything before we even thought to repent.
And i never said you were adjusting scripture to fit your view, you misunderstood me. If anything im saying your not and you should! LOL cos you have two seemingly contradictory passages and youre not adjusting you interpretation to make them both fit (ie. letting scripture interpret scripture). But anyway if you dont think its a contradiction at all, then we dont really have a problem...lol so it feels like weve made no progress :P were both back were we started
But let me ask you this; do you think love is the opposite of hate?
Do I think love is the opposite to hate? I think we have been debating the meaning of emotions too much. Like I said at the end of my last post "I think that by the end of this debate, we will see if it is possible for God to love and hate at the same time, and that will prove if it really is a paradox or not." We cannot settle this debate by ideas of emotions, so lets focus on scripture now, for we don't agree on the meanings of emotions.
ReplyDeleteSo you believe that God sent Jesus to justify His love for us? Basically, God only loves us because He made us holy, and He only made us holy because we fit into His big plan, right?
Romans 8:29-30 does show that He chose us at the same point He decided to create us, so you showed unconditional election right, but where does it say that at that point He chose to love us and only us? You used rom 8:29-30 to say that God chose to love His elected people when He elected them, but it doesn't say that. I think you assume that because of your belief that He does love only us and that would be when He decided to love only us, yeh?
This is where I bring John 3:16 in, the most famous and likely the most misused passage in all of scripture lol :P I may misuse it now, but this is how I am seeing it. I believe we see some insight into God's will here in that; not that He sent Jesus merely to love us, but because of His love for us. And not just the elect, but the world, for if it is merely Jesus in us that caused Him to love us then this verse is back to front. I do not discount His sovereign will being that He only chose us because it fit with His will (for everything to glorify Him), but am trying to show that He could have accomplished His will to stop all hostile powers another way, but chose to send Christ because of His love for us.
You're trying to say that God chose to love the elect, but couldn't love them so He sent Jesus in order to love them (which logically works as a theory). But if Jesus was sent because of God's love for the world, then it wasn't so that God could love the elect, but because of His love for the world!
You missed my point in the previous post.
ReplyDeleteIm arguing the meaning of emotions because as long as you dont see loving and hating simultaneously as a paradox then we have nothing to talk about...you can interpret scriptures one way and i can interpret it another. In other words theres no point trying to persuade you to agree with my interpretation of certain passages (eg. John 3:16) if you dont see any contradiction in the text to begin with
You keep misrepresenting my view so im gonna try explain it one more time lol:
1. God CHOSE to love us.
2. But God cannot justly CONTINUE to love sinners as they are (Ps. 5:5)
3. God dies for sinners to deal with their sin thus JUSTIFYING his love for them...not CAUSING him to love them, but JUSTIFYING the love he already has for them (Rom 3:25-26)
Do you understand what im saying? So far you keep saying that i believe God can only love them after he dies for them, which makes little sense cos why would he die for them unless he loved them first! His death was not to cause him to love them but to JUSTIFY (key word) his love or them
Romans 8:29-30 actually proves my theory. The word foreknew is taken to mean something along the lines of "chose beforehand to love" in the same sense that God in the OT says that he "knew" Israel but didnt know the other nations. Therefore if you follow the verse it becomes clear that God only FOREKNOWS the elect lol
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be m the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
If you follow the chain in the second verse, you'll find that only those whom he FOREKNEW, are the ones who are glorified in the end; ie. the elect.
Again im not sure what to say about your John 3:16 interpretation that I havent said already. I agree with you in that God sent Jesus because of his love for us. I disagree with you that it was because of his love for EVERYONE because then the condition wouldnt be you have to believe to be saved...it would either be something that everyone would do or something he would cause everyone to do so that they would be saved...the mere fact that salvation is limited to those who believe in John 3:16 indicates that "world" does not mean everyone on the planet...it would basically be like me saying to your family, "i love everyone in your family so much that im only gonna save your mum"...what kinda love is that?
It is not Jesus in us that causes God to love us (again im not sure where youre getting this from) but his death JUSTIFIES his love for us...i keep repeating it cos im not sure youre understanding me.
Heres the thing. The word "world" in John 3:16 could most certainly mean everyone in the whole world. Im not denying that it CAN mean that...im saying that given God previously said that he HATES some people, it would be illogical to assume that world here means EVERYONE on the planet, especially considering that no other verses in the bible indicate that God loves every human being that ever lived.
BUT!
If YOU dont think that its a contradiction (simultaneous love and hate) and that its illogical then you are free to interpret it that way. THIS is why i was trying to show you how it is a paradox. Because if you dont see how it is a paradox, then there is no issue in your intepretation.
SO.
back to my ORIGINAL question...do you think love is the opposite of hate?
I know that its not a scriptural issue but hopefully now you understand how the entire debates hangs on whether you see the same paradox i see or not
Hey boys. I know I'm a woman and I'm only made from your ugly rib cages, but I have something to say. And ask.
ReplyDeleteDimi asked, 'Do you think love is the opposite of hate?'
Yes, I do think love is the opposite of hate. Therefore God can't love and hate at the same time.
But,
Jesus Christ, before preaching the law, declared,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - (Matthew 5:17)
So Jesus Christ, when He was a man walking this earth, fulfilled the law perfectly.
It is written in Matthew 5:43-44, "You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
So, given that Jesus claimed he fulfilled the law perfectly, he must have also fulfilled the above law - to love His enemies too.
In Hebrews 1:3, it is written, "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature".
So, Jesus Christ is the exact imprint of God's nature.
So, it follows that God is able to love His enemies, yet simultaneously hate his enemies (Psalm 5:5).
But the paradox remains, for love and hate, according to our human judgement, are polar opposites.
What if God who is forever greater than us, can do just that? - Love and hate his enemies at the same time, in some mysterious way that we won't know until our sanctification is perfected?
The paradox thing will go unresolved. It is a dead end and you know it. Scripture however, is not. If we cannot get there from scripture, then we reach a dead end. However, as for the moment... how about you humor me? :)
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that God chose to love us (the elect)... based on nothing? He just picked random people to love? Did He elect us based on nothing? It is true that God chooses to love, but you seem to be mixing up God's choice to love with His choice of election.
Remember, God's whole thing was He elected us merely for His purpose (to defeat all hostility), not based on ourselves, but based on how we fit into His plan. But you saying "God chose to love us" is different from saying "God chose to elect us". Allow me to demonstrate:
Did God choose to elect us merely because we fit into His plan? If this is the case, then God's purpose of election was not based on anything in us, but because we fit into that plan. God's plan has Christ as the crux of it, so God elects us by or based on the fact that He sovereignly made us accept Christ.
Did God choose to love us merely because we fit into His plan? If this is the case, then God's purpose of loving us was not based on anything in us, but because we fit into that plan. God's plan has Christ as the crux of it, so God loves us by or based on the fact that God sovereignly made us accept Christ.
Point is, if you say God chose to love just the elect, you say that God chose to love us because we fit into His plan, which was Christ (my original paradox). Otherwise why did God choose to love us? I don't think you believe that He just randomly picked a few people on earth to love, do you?
It sounds to me that you affirm a sense of the impassibility of God. You believe that God's love cannot be divorced from His knowledge, power or will. God chooses to love, just as He chooses to suffer, for no emotion can make Him vulnerable from outside sources because He has control over all and has foreseen everything.
This is true, because God does not need us. A God who has emotions like us feels vulnerable because we bring Him down to our level, where when we love something, our actions are skewed, biased and (often) made because of that love. But God is in control, and God did not send his Son down to earth because He was heartbroken and on some sort of love-stricken whim.
However, a point that must be noted is that, just as God's love cannot be divorced from His knowledge, power or will... His knowledge, power and will cannot be divorced from His love, or any of His other attributes and perfections, e.g. holiness, omniscience, etc. For by saying that God chooses to love us based on the idea that God's choice to love cannot be divorced from His will, and not taking into account the latter argument, God's love is reduced to willed altruism (which 1 Cor 13:3 shows is not love).
You seem to be suggesting that God's love be dissolved in His will, but rather what you should affirm is that the evil that impassibility fights against will be defeated if we recognize that God's emotions do not flare up out of control like ours. God's love is not merely a function of His will, but works in harmony with His will.
So my post was too long, here is the second bit :)
ReplyDelete(Btw Yenny... man I love you!)
Further, God does not "fall in love" with the elect, but He sets His affection on us. He does not predestine (choose) us out of some whim, but in love he predestines us to be adopted as sons (side note: this is according to the purpose of his will, not to justify His love) Eph 1:4-5.
This will explain it more: When a man says to a woman "I love you" is he saying "You mean everything to me, I can't live without you", or "You have an ugly face and disgusting habits, but I love you."? Which one does God mean when He says I love you? Does God not say "Your sins have made you disgusting, but I love you anyway because it is my nature to love," and to the elect add "I have set my affection on you from before the foundation of the universe, not because you are wiser or better or stronger than others but because in grace I chose to love you. You are mine, and you will be transformed. Nothing in all creation can separate you from my love mediated through Jesus Christ" Rom 8?
This is a sum up of my message as a rebuttal to your points:
1. God's love is in conjunction with all other perfections, but love is not less because of this. Therefore His choice to love was a choice to love at all, not a form of election.
2. God's love emanates from Himself, not dependent on the loveliness of the loved. And this we have learned from God as he has disclosed himself in his Son; for we love because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Here is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and gave his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).
3. In love he predestines us to be adopted as sons (sent Christ), according to the purpose of his will. (not to justify His love) Eph 1:4-5.
Yenny, Jesus DID love his enemies...us.
ReplyDeleteJesus instructs us to love our enemies because he loved HIS enemies who were US. Does that mean He loved ALL of his enemies? Psalm 5:5 indicates otherwise.
But He still loved us (believers) while were were His enemies, which is why He fulfills the law in that sense.
John imma read yours now and respond to it
The paradox thing is not a dead end...ive tried to explain how our whole debate hangs on whether you view this love and hate thing as a paradox but I dont think youre understanding me...I would like you to answer my question (are love and hate two opposites?) but if you refuse to then thats kool
ReplyDeleteI never said God chose to love us based on nothing but yes I believe his choice of election ties in with his choice to love based on Romans 8:29-30 and I explained how in my previous comment. Therefore God chose to love us according to the kind intention of his will (Ephesians 1:3-6).
Okay so I gotta be honest, I really dont understand the majority of what you're saying in your post...its like you were just talking bout random stuff and im waiting for the point to come but it never comes lol so im gonna try respond to what I can cos im not even sure what your argument is :S feels like you have gone WAY off topic, but maybe im just too dumb to get what youre saying lol :)
You're right I dont believe God falls in love with the elect...i believe He ALWAYS loved the elect, since if he began to love the elect at a certain point then hes not omniscient or immutable...not sure what your point is though...
I found what you said here interesting:
"Does God not say "Your sins have made you disgusting, but I love you anyway because it is my nature to love," and to the elect add "I have set my affection on you from before the foundation of the universe, not because you are wiser or better or stronger than others but because in grace I chose to love you. You are mine, and you will be transformed. Nothing in all creation can separate you from my love mediated through Jesus Christ" Rom 8?"
Its funny cos you used Romans 8 as a proof text for His love towards the elect but for his love towards others theres no scripture to back it up...simply because there IS no scripture that affirms that...so im really not sure how you got it
What God actually says is:
"The LORD tests the righteous,
but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence." (Psalm 11:5)
And you merely reaffirmed my point. If God really loves humanity, why would he create them to suffer eternally in hell when he could have done otherwise? Remember love is an action, otherwise its meaningless. Thus if he shows no love towards the non-elect, how can you say he loves them? You make the love of God weak and meaningless.
Okay imma address your rebuttals directly:
1. your first rebuttal shows nothing. Gods choice to love is not a form of his choice of election but like i said it TIES in with it based on Romans 8:29-30...but even if it is a form of election, i cant see how that means God loves the non-elect :S
2. again in your second rebuttal youre just telling me about Gods love...showing in no way how he loves the non-elect...im actually struggling to respond to this got i agree with everything you said in this rebuttal and you know i do :S
3. Now, heres something i can respond to :) lol Ephesians 1 says that God predestined us to be adopted as sons in love...i agree with that obviously
You use it to say that Christs death being used to cover the sins of sinners must therefore not justify Gods love towards us...which im really confused about, cos it doesnt say that at all. Could not part of the "purpose of his will" be to justify his love for us? I dont see why not
Again im really sorry if this post isnt that helpful man...im struggling to understand your arguments now.
Im hoping Im just misunderstanding you cos otherwise it looks like youve really gone off topic
Ill be honest with you...it feels like im arguing with an arminian lol cos you use so much philosophy to back up your points, that youre ignoring the scriptures that are clearly presented.
Sorry if i sound dumb, but try be more clear bout what youre saying lol
dude dim... okay you really did miss my main points lol, maybe I should have read over it and made it more clear.
ReplyDeleteMy rebuttals:
1. I said God's choice to love was NOT a form of election. Point being, you said God chose to love us in the sense where that was based on whether He elected us or not. The impassibility thing is key here, as it puts God's will above his love, i.e. His choice to love us. This presents that kind of willed altruism I mentioned; doing good, not out of love, but because of a mere choice. 1 cor 13 says this is not love at all.
I never said (as far as i know) that God loved us based on election...i keep coming back to Romans 8:29-30 cos thats where im getting all this from
ReplyDeleteHis election of us is derived from his love for us which ALWAYS existed. Now, im guessing the question is why did he choose to love me and not someone else? I dont know, cos i dont know his plans, but i dont see how that puts his will over his love :S he still loves us and the fact that he loves us according to his benevolent plan doesnt diminish his love...
How bout you explain this whole impassibility thing to me cos im not sure what you mean by that and how its relevant...
So wait... you think God loved the elect, before He elected us? "His election of us is derived from his love for us which ALWAYS existed."
ReplyDeleteYes...why would he elect us if he didnt love us?
ReplyDeleteSo if He loved just the elect, before He elected them... why would He not love the rest? Everyone was equally sinful
ReplyDeleteOkay well two things:
ReplyDelete1. Like I said in an earlier post, I dont know why he loves me and not someone else...its definitely a part of his plan (according to his good will) but i dont know his plan
2. I dont see why just because everyone is equally sinful that he HAS to love everyone
BTW im staying up late for you...you better feel special :P
ReplyDeleteBut that's just silly! On what grounds would God love just the elect if it was not based on Jesus? If He did not know that they were elect when He loved them, then His love is not based on His plan, but on emotions...
ReplyDeleteLOL! Thanks loser :P
ReplyDeleteFirstly, why does God need something to base His love on? Its supposed to be unconditional...
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you need to reconsider what the term "elect" actually means...because God loved us he CHOSE us for salvation. He always loved us and he always knew he would elect us BASED on that love (cos hes omniscient). My point is just that the election flowed from his love, not vice versa.
Actually on second thoughts, in answer to your first question, God loves us on the grounds that he is love. Same thing, but yeah
ReplyDeleteDude... your view is really weird lol, I'm gonna reply another time
ReplyDeleteIm pretty sure we have a misunderstanding cos it seems really simple to me :S but anyways
ReplyDeletenight fatty
I think your thinking is stupid lol, but I'll go with it for now and want you to answer me this question: If God loved just us elect before He elected us, and elected us out of that love, the isn't He loving the wicked? Isn't that loving and hating at the same time?
ReplyDeleteHe IS loving the wicked but hes not loving and hating at the same time (cos that would be illogical :P)
ReplyDeleteI think your getting confused cos your forgetting that God is omniscient so He knows hes gonna elect these people and save them from their sins...im still missing the part where this thinking is stupid lol
How is He not loving and hating the wicked (elect) at the same time if He loves us before He elected us?
ReplyDeleteHere's the order again John:
ReplyDelete1) He loves us
2) He justifies that love by electing us
Recognize that although one proceeds from another, for God they happen simultaneously since he is omniscient. I'm not even presenting this bit as a theory cos its explicitly biblical.
Does that make sense?
Yes, but it is clear that God loves the elect, not because of His omniscience of Jesus (according to your view, in which part I agree with), even though He knows we will accept Jesus. So not because we would have been righteous, but though we were wicked.
ReplyDeleteThis is how I used Romans 5:7-8, which was my main text in the first place. This text shows us two kinds of ways someone would die for another: if they were righteous and if they were wicked. It says that man can (rarely) die for a good person, but God showed His love by dying for the wicked. So you can see this passage elevates His love above the first kind and into the second kind. Heres my point; if God was only able to love us because in His omniscience He saw we would be justified (even though He did know), then that is putting God's love into the first category, i.e. dying for a good person.
If i have caused you to believe that I think God cannot love the wicked then i apologize. I may not have made myself clear.
ReplyDelete1) God loves the wicked, simply because He can (He's God like that :P)
2) So far Ive been saying that NOW THAT HE LOVES THE WICKED in order to CONTINUE IN or JUSTIFY His love for the wicked, he MUST die for them and save them from their sins thus making them righteous...for TWO reasons
REASON 1: The bible indicates that God hates the wicked, so he cannot continue to love them in their wicked state forever.
REASON 2: If God truly loved us He MUST die for us, since it would be unlovingly to leave us in our sins.
Again to summarise my view. God CAN (in one sense) love the wicked, but that love must justify itself by dying for their sins, otherwise this love is incompatible with Psalm 5:5 and also is not SHOWN in letting sinner die in their sin and perish forever.
It cannot be said more simply than this. If you dont get it at this point then were just gonna have to disagree cos it makes PERFECT sense to me and the more I think about it the more sense it makes (which is why this debate has been so beneficial for me, cos it really consolidates my understanding of it).
Lastly just to respond to your Romans verse there.
Your eisegesis is disturbing here. Romans 5:7-8 emphasises that all Christians can have assurance because there was NOTHING inherent in us that caused God to die for us. It was merely his love. It was his love that caused him to die for us, not our goodness (cos we have none), which hopefully i have demonstrated to you above. God did not die for us BECAUSE we were good, but to MAKE us good. Youre stretching a text which is clearly about the elect to refer to all wicked people in general which makes little sense since if God died for the all wicked people then everyone would be saved.
Haha, you seem a little impatient with me at this point :P if you're getting frustrated with my lack of understanding then tell me now and we can stop this debate, cos there is no point making an issue out of something like this.
ReplyDeleteWith the Romans verses you may have misunderstood me there, for I was not saying that it was for the non-elect, in fact when I used these verses the first time I made it clear that I understood it was for the elect. My comment was merely affirming what you had said in previously (that He loves us though we were wicked). Here's the thing though, I thought God elected us merely because we fit in His plan, not because He loved us (the elect). I am here thinking that because He loved us (the world), He elected as many as was possible, while keeping in line with His plan. I mean, isn't that the whole two wills thing? The whole, God doesn't wish that anyone should go to hell? Like so far you've been saying that God isn't showing love to those in hell, so what, is He acting out of hatred? I'm am picturing your view of God as someone constantly beating bad people in the face because He wants to, rather than because He is being just... Are you going to tell me that you think God wants the wicked to go to hell out of His righteous hatred when we are told that He doesn't?
LOL sorry man but just feels like were getting no where
ReplyDeleteDude at this point Im quite certain God elected us based on His love for us (cos thats affirmed in scripture (Romans 5 & Romans 8)). Now, where His will comes into it, I really don't know.
It could be that He loves us based on his will. Meaning he figured out the best of all possible worlds and loved us based on that. The only problem with that is it kinda limits his love to his will, but then I dont think theres anything scripturally wrong with that. I think your always gonna end up with SOMETHING being limited.
The OTHER possibility (and this is only something been thinking bout since like yesterday) is that God created and foreordained the entire world (including all of history and everything like that) based on his love for us. Meaning He actually loved us before ANYTHING. Even before he determined that we would fall and become sinners. Then He wrote history and determined non-elect to exist alongside us in order to have someone to go to hell (cos it wouldnt really be grace if everyone was saved).
These are only theories so far so if you can think of any scriptures that contradict them then let me know so I can think it through.
In terms of the two wills, I think it works fine here. In his permissive will, he doesnt want any to go to hell out of compassion (not love). Now granted that compassion would spring from the fact that God is love but remember you can be LOVING towards something but not actually LOVE them, as i demonstrated with that whole caring for the non elect based on his love of the elect thing before. He may hate the sinner, but he can still show mercy to them.
Remember one of my biggest issues with God loving the non elect is that he does absolutely NOTHING to show it and practically everything to show OTHERWISE. To love someone means to seek their best. He does this with the elect. But with the non elect he basically consigns them to hell...how is that love? If you say that he loves them by giving them the opportunity to be saved well, thats still not love cos we both know He actually could SAVE them but chooses not to. If you say that he wants to save them but is limited by his will that only few shall be saved, then were back to our initial problem; He does NOTHING to show his love for the non-elect. So why even claim that He does? You would basically be saying God loves the non-elect but he loves them so LITTLE that it never actually makes Him do anything to save em. He only provides them with daily requirements and comforts to sustain them until they die and go to hell for eternity. Its actually kind of offensive that you would call that love.
Im gonna address you directly for a sec:
You said:
"You've been saying that God isn't showing love to those in hell, so what, is He acting out of hatred?"
...yes lol Psalms 5:5
You said:
"I'm am picturing your view of God as someone constantly beating bad people in the face because He wants to, rather than because He is being just"
Firstly how did you get that from what I was saying?
Secondly, if God wasnt just then He would even notice bad people. But YOU seem to be implying that when God deals out punishment to those who justly deserve it, hes not allowed to enjoy it :S like he may not like it but he HAS to do it cos hes bound by justice...i disagree
you said:
"Are you going to tell me that you think God wants the wicked to go to hell out of His righteous hatred when we are told that He doesn't?"
John even YOU believe that God wants the wicked to go to hell based on his righteous hatred. When the bible speaks of God not wanting people to go to hell (btw can you tell me exactly what verses youre talking about, cos I wanna examine them) that must be his permissive will, where he is speaking out of his general compassion and mercy.
I gotta leave for work soon so I'll be quick, the verses are 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9, and even though you can look at both these verses and say it is for nations because he mentions kings, or the elect because he is directing Christians, I think Ezekiel 18 seals the deal, in particular v. 23; 32 and 33:11. And hey man, I'm not saying God isn't allowed to enjoy it, He can do what He wants (like love and hate at the same time :P) but if God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (18:23), or in anyone (v.32), then it seems to me that it's not that He can't enjoy it, but just that He doesn't. And I got that from what you were saying because you said He is acting out of hatred when He throws people in hell, which seems to sound like He wants to throw them in, rather then does it because He has to. And God is not limited to His will that "only a few shall be saved", but to His big purpose, His plan for everything to be united to Him (Eph 1:10). That is why we were chosen, according to His will (Eph 1:5), not because He loved us and not others... I thought that was the whole two wills thing wasn't it?
ReplyDeleteMy biggest issue here for me is that, the reason for your belief that God only loves the elect is that He cannot love and hate at the same time, but you claim He did love those He hated, but just justified it. He still loved those He hated. And plus, He elected us based on who would fit into His plan, not because He first loved the elect, that was why I found your view so silly before, cos if He loved us before He elected us, it seems like He must have built His plan around us, but He elected us in according to His will (Eph 1:5), and if you still believe that He elected us according to His will but loved us before He elected us, then why would He have loved us? That's why I asked on what basis would He love us? He loved us and they just happened to fall in with His plan?
Anyways, I love all this man, I don't know why you would want to stop this convo lol. Look, simply put, I know I'm not the smartest guy out there but I do have these views that you do not have and would like to work it out. I am not saying all this to convince you that my view is right, but am trying to learn from you and really appreciate all these talks we have. Anyways, peace out dude, I'm gonna be late for work!!!
Ive dealt with the 1 Timothy one before...in regards to the 2 Peter 3:9 one, check this out and let me know what you think:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or-IZnnm5rw
But i agree with you on the Ezekiel passages. He makes it clear that he doesnt take pleasure in the death of the wicked (in one sense, since we know that he does enjoy exacting wrath upon them in another sense, otherwise youre saying he does not like being just) since like the ESV says, were created in his image. This does NOT necessitate though that he LOVES them. More so that he grieves that those made in his image must be destroyed like that. Its more about HIM than it is about THEM.
I never claimed he loves those whom he hates. Thats a contradiction.
He ALWAYS loved the elect. I dont believe when the bible says God hates the wicked that it refers to the elect, even though they are at some point wicked. I agree with the ESV when it says God hates those who are IMPENITENTLY wicked (non elect) cos thats the only way to reconcile it with all the passages that explicitly say that God loves believers. Let me make this clear: He NEVER loved those he hated. He ALWAYS loved the elect.
Notice how in Romans 8:30 its all past tense? Pauls point is that in God's mind were already glorified. Even before were born! Because its so certain that it will happen! So when an elect person is wicked before he is saved, God looks at him and sees a SAINT. He doesnt see a wicked person.
Im gonna lay out a scenario and let me know if you have any issues with it...
Pretend your God.
You always existed. You decide in order to glorify yourself, you will make beings to love you. You love them. Then to show your amazing love to them you set up a whole scenario where they fall and become sinners and you die for their sins. Then you decide to make other beings whom you prepare beforehand for destruction to show your justice and to emphasis your mercy to those whom you foreknew in eternity past.
You keep going on about how God elected us according to his will. Im not seeing how my view opposes that. OF COURSE he elects us according to his will! The definition of your will is what you WANT to do! lol Obviously God wanted to love his people which included electing them for salvation.
I really dont think i understand you when you ask what God based his love for us on. Its based on the fact that God is love, as ive said before. His will is to glorify himself. Since He is love, to show his love would be to glorify himself. Thus loving us, is his will.
Also one thing your missing when reading Eph 1:5 is to read one verse before and see how verse 5 is introduced with those two words "in love". The purpose of his will was to save wicked sinners from their sins. Read the passage in context and with that in mind.
Its not that I dont like this discussion man, but i feel like im repeating myself a lot (which is kool if you genuinely dont get what I mean, but it feels like you dont WANT to understand me...not saying thats how it is, but thats just how i feel).
My key issue with you is that while Im trying to interpret scripture logically, youre trying to intepret scripture paradoxically which i believe is a bad approach if you havent tried interpeting it logically first. (And i know you dont think its a paradox, but if you answered my question on love and hate being opposites and let me probe that line of thought, im pretty sure you would admit it is a paradox)
It means that you have a view of scripture that youre trying to read INTO the text when the text is not allowing it. Which i dont really blame you for cos ever since we were kids weve been told that God loves everyone which is why its even hard for me to believe this stuff but I gotta stay true to scripture.
It's not that I've believed this my whole life or anything like that, I just literally can't see it lol.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, good point about that psalm 5:5 and the past tense of Rom 8:30, kinda crushes my idea that God loved and hated the elect, but I'll look at that later. However 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Pet 3:9 I commented on myself and said exactly what you said lol. As for Eze 18:23, that stuff about why God doesn't want anyone at all to go to hell is 1. more than what the scripture tells us and 2. is irrelevant to what we were talking about. I wasn't trying to prove God's love with that scripture, but you asked me for the verses on God's two wills. Whatever the motive is for God not wanting people to go to hell, it still shows that although God has one will for everyone to go to heaven, He has another will that involves most people going to hell. The second will of these two wills is the purpose for election, as it is why some go to hell (and I think this is a big divide between our views).
When I say God elected us according to His will, I'm saying that God wanted to stop all hostile powers, and that is why He elected us, according to THAT will. The idea is that God would not have gotten all the glory (there would still be hostile forces around) if He saved every person.
But when you say He elected us according to His will, you take that to mean He elected us out of what He wanted to do, which was to love us (the elect). But if He elected us because He loved us (elect), and not because we simply fit with His plan to stop all hostile powers, then that means He had to try and fit His plan around us, doesn't it? Is that what you believe?
Yes, I know about the words "In love" in Eph 1:4, but either belief (God loving all or only some) will agree that He did elect us out of love, but rather there wasn't a lack of love as the reason why He did not elect the non-elect.
Lol okay well if you cant see it then thats fair enough :P
ReplyDeleteI know you understand the timothy and Peter verses but i just wanted to make sure.
Im kinda confused by all this "will" stuff but ill try respond as best I can.
My point with the Ephesians 1:4-5 verse was to show that God elected us out of love. The way the passage is written clearly indicates that election came OUT of the love, not that just love was present. In other words:
Why would Paul note that it was IN love that he predestined us, if the love itself was not an influencing factor? Think about it...we already know God loves the world (cos of John 3:16) so why would he need to remind us here unless it played a part in the predestining?
Its cos of verses like that and Romans 8:30 that I believe God elected us out of his love or "foreknowing".
In terms of "fitting his plan around us" i laid out my theory for how it happened (which answers a lot of the questions you just asked) in my previous comment but you didnt really say if you agreed or not so ill put it in again in case you missed it:
"Pretend your God.
You always existed. You decide in order to glorify yourself, you will make beings to love you. You love them. Then to show your amazing love to them you set up a whole scenario where they fall and become sinners and you die for their sins. Then you decide to make other beings whom you prepare beforehand for destruction to show your justice and to emphasis your mercy to those whom you foreknew in eternity past."
I'm actually quite content with this theory so let me know if you see any problems with it. While it seems that we are the centre of the whole story, the focus is actually God's amazing love and justice among other things.
In other words while it may look like its all about us, its actually all about God so dont think im making it too man centred when i say that God fit his plan around us. The only reason he loved us in the first place was to glorify him, since everything he does is to glorify himself.
I hope that answers your questions about His will...let me know what you think bout my theory
Well the I've taken the "In love" of Eph 1:4 to mean that God could have completed His will to stop any hostility another way (lets say, by sending us all to hell), but He loved us too much to do that, so He saved as many as possible by doing something amazing, which He really didn't have to do: send Christ to die.
ReplyDeleteMy theory would be this:
Pretend you're (btw you keep spelling "you're" like "your" lol :P) God. You decide in order to glorify Yourself, You make beings that will glorify You. There is no way to simply create beings that will glorify You without them sinning, so You must teach them. In order to save some of those You must allow many of them to receive eternal punishment, because it is just.
The thing about Ephesians 1 is that it not only tells us we were predestined according to His will, but it actually tells us what that will is, Eph 1:6 to get the glory and Eph 1:10 to unite everything in Him.
So what youre saying is...out of the love he had for us he elected us? Cos in that case you believe he elected us because he loved us, just like i do...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this part of your theory:
"There is no way to simply create beings that will glorify You without them sinning, so You must teach them."
I reckon He could make beings like that, just like he made the angels and two thirds of them didnt fall (and remember satan and his angels only fell because God wanted them to)
In the same way He could have created Adam and prevented him from sinning. What makes you think he cant?
Its just difficult for me to believe that God loves everyone when:
1) the bible says he dont
2) only ONE verse in the WHOLE bible can be used to say he loves every single person (thats really suspect)
3) If he loves the non elect i dont understand why he doesnt save em...cos if he does nothing to show his love then its not love. And I know you'll say that its cos he could only save some according to his will but a) i disagree lol and b) like i said before even if he IS limited by his will, then the definition of love in 1 Cor 13 doesnt match up with how he is towards the non-elect.
4) its VERY difficult for me to believe that for eternity in hell God is going to be in love with the sinner who still refuses to repent and hates God from the bottom of his heart. To say that He loves sinners then is to degrade love to a mere feeling that HARDLY alters a persons disposition to another.