PDA

View Full Version : God loves all?



Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 09:46 PM
I remain convinced that God doesn't love all.

For God so loved the world...I know this verse. I'm sure everybody here can quote John 3:16 by heart.

What needs to be done is define world.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Did Christ take away the sin from those who are saved AND those who are unsaved?

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Is he the Savior of the unsaved as well as the saved?

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Does he give life to the unsaved as well as the saved?

To say that the "world" referred to here includes those who are unsaved along with those who are saved would be a form of, if not outright, universalism.

Anyway, back to topic. Show me that God loves those He has condemned. He killed so many through the flood. He killed many through the Israelites, women, children, and infants alike.

I want to believe that God loves all, just show me why I should believe it.

Brother Mark
Jan 4th 2009, 09:50 PM
1 John 2:2
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

One thing about Calvinism, it has to redefine biblical words or it would not exist.

Universalism and Calvinism are extremely close in doctrine.

mikebr
Jan 4th 2009, 10:32 PM
I remain convinced that God doesn't love all.

For God so loved the world...I know this verse. I'm sure everybody here can quote John 3:16 by heart.

What needs to be done is define world.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Did Christ take away the sin from those who are saved AND those who are unsaved?

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Is he the Savior of the unsaved as well as the saved?

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Does he give life to the unsaved as well as the saved?

To say that the "world" referred to here includes those who are unsaved along with those who are saved would be a form of, if not outright, universalism.

Anyway, back to topic. Show me that God loves those He has condemned. He killed so many through the flood. He killed many through the Israelites, women, children, and infants alike.

I want to believe that God loves all, just show me why I should believe it.

Why would Jesus tell us to love our enemies if He didn't love His?

Why would it rain on the just and the unjust if He didn't love the unjust?

Why would He be the savior of all men (in any sense) especially those who believe if He didn't love them?

If He is Love how could He not love?

I'm with BrotherMark on this one, you have to change some stuff to believe he don't love us all.

markdrums
Jan 4th 2009, 10:37 PM
I remain convinced that God doesn't love all.

For God so loved the world...I know this verse. I'm sure everybody here can quote John 3:16 by heart.

What needs to be done is define world.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Did Christ take away the sin from those who are saved AND those who are unsaved?

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Is he the Savior of the unsaved as well as the saved?

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Does he give life to the unsaved as well as the saved?

To say that the "world" referred to here includes those who are unsaved along with those who are saved would be a form of, if not outright, universalism.

Anyway, back to topic. Show me that God loves those He has condemned. He killed so many through the flood. He killed many through the Israelites, women, children, and infants alike.

I want to believe that God loves all, just show me why I should believe it.

God made salvation & forgiveness available to "whosoever asks"..... Not everyone WILL ask, but the offer is on the table.

AND... he loves us SO MUCH, that he's willing to respect our choices for all eternity.
Whether it's to have a relationship with him, or to NOT have one.... We can rest assured that God's love is real, & strong enough to respect & honor our choices.

Can you imagine NOT wanting the relationship with him, and being dragged into Heaven & into his presence against your will, for ALL ETERNITY?
There would be no personal choice in that situation.

But that's not the case.

His love for us is beyond our comprehension.
Think about it.
Even while we were yet sinners, he loved us enough to provide a way to be free from the curse of sin. He willingly died for us, to cover OUR butts for the mistake WE made.

I can't think of a bettter example of love than that!
:)

mikebr
Jan 4th 2009, 10:38 PM
“For God has concluded them all [B] in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon ALL.

Who are the ones concluded in unbelief and why would he have mercy on those He didn't love?

BrckBrln
Jan 4th 2009, 11:01 PM
Universalism and Calvinism are extremely close in doctrine.

That's funny, we Calvinists believe Universalism and Arminianism are extremely close in doctrine.

Anyway, I do believe that God does love every single person in a certain way. I agree that if we are to love our enemies then that means God too loves His enemies. This love, however, doesn't mean all will be saved or that universal atonement is true.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 4th 2009, 11:02 PM
God IS Love! God IS Holy; God IS Righteous; God IS Just; God IS Light; God IS Truth; God IS Life.

Questions:
Does God deal with all His Creation Holily or un-Holily?
Does God deal with all His Creation Righteously, or unrighteously?
Does God deal with all His Creation Justly, or unjustly?
Does God deal with all His Creation with Light, or darkness?
Does God deal with all His Creation in Truth, or lie?
Does God deal with all His Creation with Life, or death?
Does God deal with all His Creation out of Love, or hate?

God IS Love, and if anything I am, or if anything I can do, can cause Almighty God not to love, then I have caused God (who never changes) to change.

Can I make Almighty God to be unHoly, or unjust, or unrighteous?
Can I cause Him, to be darkness, or a lie, or death, or hate?

In all these things I say NO, for I am but the dust of the earth.

mikebr
Jan 4th 2009, 11:06 PM
That's funny, we Calvinists believe Universalism and Arminianism are extremely close in doctrine.

Anyway, I do believe that God does love every single person in a certain way. I agree that if we are to love our enemies then that means God too loves His enemies. This love, however, doesn't mean all will be saved or that universal atonement is true.

How so?


Does He love them like I love pizza?

Brother Mark
Jan 4th 2009, 11:08 PM
That's funny, we Calvinists believe Universalism and Arminianism are extremely close in doctrine.

I know several universalist that are Calvinist.


Anyway, I do believe that God does love every single person in a certain way. I agree that if we are to love our enemies then that means God too loves His enemies. This love, however, doesn't mean all will be saved or that universal atonement is true.Right. He "loves" them. But it is such a weak love that it cannot save. :rolleyes: It is another area where Calvinist have to redefine biblical words, like love and world, in order to keep their doctrine.

Agape no longer means agape and world doesn't mean world.

mikebr
Jan 4th 2009, 11:10 PM
In what sense could I love a drowing victim but not do anything to attempt to save him?:hmm:

BrckBrln
Jan 4th 2009, 11:11 PM
How so?

As I understand Arminianism, Jesus only made salvation possible by dying on the cross and it's up to us to accept or reject it. That leaves open the possibility that all would accept it. We know this isn't the case but the possibility was there.


Does He love them like I love pizza?

I don't understand the question.

timmyb
Jan 4th 2009, 11:14 PM
I remain convinced that God doesn't love all.

For God so loved the world...I know this verse. I'm sure everybody here can quote John 3:16 by heart.

What needs to be done is define world.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Did Christ take away the sin from those who are saved AND those who are unsaved?

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Is he the Savior of the unsaved as well as the saved?

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Does he give life to the unsaved as well as the saved?

To say that the "world" referred to here includes those who are unsaved along with those who are saved would be a form of, if not outright, universalism.

Anyway, back to topic. Show me that God loves those He has condemned. He killed so many through the flood. He killed many through the Israelites, women, children, and infants alike.

I want to believe that God loves all, just show me why I should believe it.

what about Romans 5:18 while we were yet sinners Christ died for us... he chose you before you even had the opportunity to choose him... that means he died for all... even for the ones who don't choose him... the saved are the ones who agree with his sacrifice... and the unsaved are the ones who don't, thus by their refusal of God's free gift, he is justified in sending them to eternal punishment

BrckBrln
Jan 4th 2009, 11:17 PM
I know several universalist that are Calvinist.

And I actually think that has more biblical support than Arminianism. At least as I understand it, both Universalists and Calvinists believe the Atonement to be effectual. It's just that Calvinists believe it was limited while Universalists believe it was universal.


Right. He "loves" them. But it is such a weak love that it cannot save. :rolleyes: It is another area where Calvinist have to redefine biblical words, like love and world, in order to keep their doctrine.

So God loves everybody in a saving way? If He does then why doesn't He save everybody, not just make salvation 'possible'?

BrckBrln
Jan 4th 2009, 11:19 PM
In what sense could I love a drowing victim but not do anything to attempt to save him?:hmm:

And what kind of love is it to just thrown a life saver and say 'take it if you want'? Saving love would be jumping overboard and physically saving the person.

timmyb
Jan 4th 2009, 11:20 PM
one question i always ask Calvinists regarding their view of predestination and replacement theology is why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39 if he had predestined Israel for hell?...

threebigrocks
Jan 4th 2009, 11:30 PM
And what kind of love is it to just thrown a life saver and say 'take it if you want'? Saving love would be jumping overboard and physically saving the person.

And the jumping overboard is what God wants us to do. Run into the burning building, take their hand, and show them the way out. Spiritually they are drowning, spiritually they are about to burn alive. We may minister to their physical needs, but the physical doesn't last forever. We minister to the physical which is temporary to show them and minister to the spiritual which is eternal.

God give us all the opportunity, a lifetime's worth, to hear his call and come to Him because He so loved the world.

TrustingFollower
Jan 4th 2009, 11:38 PM
And what kind of love is it to just thrown a life saver and say 'take it if you want'? Saving love would be jumping overboard and physically saving the person.
If Jesus coming to this world is not God himself jumping overboard to save us then what is it.

Through Jesus, salvation is available to all, but not all will take the gift offered. John chapter 1 shows it very nicely.

John 1

9 ¶There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Those that receive the free gift of grace offered and believe in Christ they become the children of God i.e. the elect.

BrckBrln
Jan 4th 2009, 11:41 PM
If Jesus coming to this world is not God himself jumping overboard to save us then what is it.

I don't think you're understanding fully the analogy.


Through Jesus, salvation is available to all, but not all will take the gift offered.

This would be God throwing the life saver and hoping people take hold of it. That's Arminianism. Calvinism says that God jumps overboard and actually saves some people. Universalism would say God jumps overboard and actually saves everybody.

timmyb
Jan 4th 2009, 11:52 PM
God doesn't violate anyone's free will... using the life saver analogy... God is throwing the life saver to drowning people... keep in mind the choice of man has absolutely no effect on God's sovreignty or his being... man will either agree with him and love him wholeheartedly or they will not... he is God and he knows what he wants and he knows how to get it the fastest way with the least amount of pain, to produce the greatest amount of love, without violating anyone's free will...

the life saver is there... but it doesn't really matter to God if man takes it or not... but then again it's not completely about salvation... it's about coming to the father... Every religion can try to solve the sin problem... but only Christianity solves the root of the problem that causes sin in that we don't know God or his ways... no other religion on the planet gives us the oppotunity to know God and to be his friend (John 15:15) but pictures God as aloof and distant and man has to work to get to him... God draws all men to the life raft, but the reality is that it can only be accepted by faith... there are so many that have 'accepted' Christ based on intellectual and verbal acknowledgement of his existence...

but at the end of the day, God isn't sitting in heaven wringing his hands hoping that man would somehow come to him... but he isn't forcing them to come to him either... he is God and he knows who we are and he knows every part of us... and that knowledge of us alone would say that he knows the true desire of man's heart to draw them to him... to force us would be lack of confidence on his part and to have him as desperate would do the same...

the true beauty of God's heart is that he desires us... he doesn't need us at all.. we take nothing away from him by refusing him and we add nothing to him by accepting and agreeing with him

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 12:22 AM
And I actually think that has more biblical support than Arminianism. At least as I understand it, both Universalists and Calvinists believe the Atonement to be effectual. It's just that Calvinists believe it was limited while Universalists believe it was universal.

Well, there you go. As I said earlier, there's not much difference between Calvinism and Universalism. ;) Most arminians agree that his blood is effectual.


So God loves everybody in a saving way? If He does then why doesn't He save everybody, not just make salvation 'possible'?Perhaps a better question is, if God doesn't use a different word for love when describing the world or non-elect, why should we? Could it be that we wish to believe our doctrine more than we believe the scriptures?

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 12:24 AM
one question i always ask Calvinists regarding their view of predestination and replacement theology is why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37-39 if he had predestined Israel for hell?...

OK. I wanted so bad to use a sarcastic remark here. But alas, the flesh profits nothing. Your post is good enough that it deserves to be put up here again for others to read.

Thanks.

monergist
Jan 5th 2009, 01:06 AM
OK. I wanted so bad to use a sarcastic remark here. But alas, the flesh profits nothing. Your post is good enough that it deserves to be put up here again for others to read.

Thanks.

This question is assuming that in God predestinating things that man has no free will. That isn't the Calvinist position. Yes, God predestines, and yes, people choose what they do, but no, humans cannot choose God of their own will because their own will would NEVER choose God.

I could ask the Arminian the same thing, that is, is God weeping over those in hell since he supposedly loves him? If God loves everyone, does he love people in hell? What kind of love is that? Is God eternally sad because people he loves are suffering eternal torment by His decree? I have no intention of defending the Calvinist position in a forum that's obviously mostly Arminian, but if you're going to talk about us, you should at least get our position correct.

Also, I know a lot of Calvinists. I go to a Calvinist church, attend a Calvinist seminary, and I've NEVER met a Calvinist that is a universalist.

God bless.

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 01:11 AM
This question is assuming that in God predestinating things that man has no free will. That isn't the Calvinist position. Yes, God predestines, and yes, people choose what they do, but no, humans cannot choose God of their own will because their own will would NEVER choose God.

I could ask the Arminian the same thing, that is, is God weeping over those in hell since he supposedly loves him? If God loves everyone, does he love people in hell? What kind of love is that? Is God eternally sad because people he loves are suffering eternal torment by His decree? I have no intention of defending the Calvinist position in a forum that's obviously mostly Arminian, but if you're going to talk about us, you should at least get our position correct.

I know the bible says that God loved the world. I believe that too. The calivinist must redefine the words "world" and "love" in order to keep his doctrine intact. There are many points calvinist can bring to the table. Sadly, many take it further than scripture.


Also, I know a lot of Calvinists. I go to a Calvinist church, attend a Calvinist seminary, and I've NEVER met a Calvinist that is a universalist.

I have. ;) They agree with your theology on almost every point.

TrustingFollower
Jan 5th 2009, 01:16 AM
I don't think you're understanding fully the analogy.



This would be God throwing the life saver and hoping people take hold of it. That's Arminianism. Calvinism says that God jumps overboard and actually saves some people. Universalism would say God jumps overboard and actually saves everybody.
The thing is you have to be willing to look at it all without the doctrine glasses on. Put aside what the calvinist have to say and pray over it and see what God has to say. When we humble ourselves and admit that we do not have the answers that is when God will come in and deliver the answers.

You say God jumps in and saves some, but I say God came here to show all that each of us can have salvation. Not all will choose to except that, but it is still made available to all men. After all you and I were enemies to God when Jesus paid the price for our sins.

Romans 5

10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

TrustingFollower
Jan 5th 2009, 01:31 AM
This question is assuming that in God predestinating things that man has no free will. That isn't the Calvinist position. Yes, God predestines, and yes, people choose what they do, but no, humans cannot choose God of their own will because their own will would NEVER choose God.

I could ask the Arminian the same thing, that is, is God weeping over those in hell since he supposedly loves him? If God loves everyone, does he love people in hell? What kind of love is that? Is God eternally sad because people he loves are suffering eternal torment by His decree? I have no intention of defending the Calvinist position in a forum that's obviously mostly Arminian, but if you're going to talk about us, you should at least get our position correct.

Also, I know a lot of Calvinists. I go to a Calvinist church, attend a Calvinist seminary, and I've NEVER met a Calvinist that is a universalist.

God bless.
Does God not desire that all be saved, but being a just God also allow those whom choose to reject the offer to perish.

2 Peter 3

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

BrckBrln
Jan 5th 2009, 01:48 AM
I have. ;) They agree with your theology on almost every point.

Except for point number three, right? :)

And that disqualifies them from being true Calvinists.

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 01:54 AM
Except for point number three, right? :)

And that disqualifies them from being true Calvinists.

No. They agree with point number 3. His blood is effectual for all men is what they will tell you. ;) But the point made earlier is valid. Universalist have much in common with Calvinist.

Still, better to focus on redefining words such as "love" and "world". It's not an easy answer for the full fledged Calvinist. As I have said many times, people like to change the bible to preach their doctrine rather than simply believe the scriptures.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son..."

and

1 John 2:2
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

But alas, "whole world" no longer means world and "love" no longer means love.

IMO, it is a salient point. Why not just back off those areas where scripture says differently and keep the areas where scripture keeps them?

monergist
Jan 5th 2009, 01:54 AM
I know the bible says that God loved the world. I believe that too. The calivinist must redefine the words "world" and "love" in order to keep his doctrine intact. There are many points calvinist can bring to the table. Sadly, many take it further than scripture.



I have. ;) They agree with your theology on almost every point.

You didn't really answer my question. If "love" always means the same thing, then how do you harmonize the following with your interpretation of John 3:16?

Psalm 11:5
The LORD examines the righteous,
but the wicked and those who love violence
his soul hates.

Psalm 5:5
The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong

So, are those wicked people that God hates not in the world that God loves? Does God love them and hate them in the same way? If "love" always means the same thing, then you have some serious contradictions on your hands. I love my wife, and I love spaghetti, but I don't love them in the same way. Likewise, the Calvinist recognizes that not all of God's love is the same. If I can love things differently as a finite creation, then God can love in different ways.

What about the world? Does world always mean the same thing? You seem to believe that the word "world" must mean all people everywhere all the time. So, how does that definition work in the following context?

Luke 9:25
What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

So, was Jesus saying,"What good is it for a man to gain all people everywhere all the time, and yet lost or forfeit his very self?" World doesn't always mean the same thing. Strong's has 8 different defintions for kosmos. According to dictionary.com, the English word, "world" has 24 different meanings!

No, Calvinists don't have to change the meanings of words to be Calvinists. We do, however, have to harmonize scripture in such a way that respects its inerrancy, and to make an interpretation that would cause the scriptures to contradict themselves is not an option.

Also, if you're going to group Calvinists in with universalists because "the agree with our theology on almost every point" then I guess it would be fair to say the same thing about Arminians and open theists. They do agree with Arminians in every way with respect to soteriology.

God bless.

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 01:56 AM
You didn't really answer my question. If "love" always means the same thing, then how do you harmonize the following with your interpretation of John 3:16?

I intentionally did not answer it. Why should I try to go against the scriptures? The scriptures say God loves the whole world. Why say differently?

So, in order to get rid of things you do not understand (i.e. contradictions), you redefine love? Why not simply say your understanding is limited instead of changing the word of God to meet your personal thoughts?

BrckBrln
Jan 5th 2009, 01:59 AM
No. They agree with point number 3. His blood is effectual for all men is what they will tell you. ;) But the point made earlier is valid. Universalist have much in common with Calvinist.

Point three is Limited Atonement. Universalists don't believe in Limited Atonement, they believe in Unlimited Atonement. It's not the same thing.

And this Unlimited Atonement is similar to the Arminian doctrine of Unlimited Atonement. Universalists just take it a step further and rightly say that the Atonement is effectual. Your trying to tie Calvinism with Universalism doesn't work.

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 02:04 AM
Point three is Limited Atonement. Universalists don't believe in Limited Atonement, they believe in Unlimited Atonement. It's not the same thing.

And this Unlimited Atonement is similar to the Arminian doctrine of Unlimited Atonement. Universalists just take it a step further and rightly say that the Atonement is effectual. Your trying to tie Calvinism with Universalism doesn't work.

Still avoiding the whole "changing definitions of words".

BrckBrln
Jan 5th 2009, 02:07 AM
Still avoiding the whole "changing definitions of words".

Because it's a false accusation as monergist showed.

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 02:10 AM
Because it's a false accusation as monergist showed.

No he didn't. He simply called it "reconciliation". Scripture says God loves the world. Calvinist say he doesn't.

You guys redefine it because it doesn't fit your system. "OH, I don't see how that can be true, so it must mean something else". With that kind of study, we could have just about any theology we wanted to have.

That's pretty much one of my biggest beefs with Calvinist. Instead of saying "I don't fully understand God and all he says" they say "He didn't really mean that, what he means is something totally different than what the scriptures say."

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 02:11 AM
Because it's a false accusation as monergist showed.

No he didn't. He simply called it "reconciliation". Scripture says God loves the world. Calvinist say he doesn't.

You guys redefine it because it doesn't fit your system. "OH, I don't see how that can be true, so it must mean something else". With that kind of study, we could have just about any theology we wanted to have.

That's pretty much one of my biggest beefs with Calvinist. Instead of saying "I don't fully understand God and all he says" they say "He didn't really mean that, what he means is something totally different than what the scriptures say."

For instance, all Calivinist will say he loves the unelect on some level. Yet, still use verses of hate. Interestingly enough, they will say God loves and hate the same people then turn around and say God can't love and hate the same people. All so they can avoid contradictions. :rolleyes:

watchinginawe
Jan 5th 2009, 02:20 AM
Point three is Limited Atonement. Universalists don't believe in Limited Atonement, they believe in Unlimited Atonement. It's not the same thing.

And this Unlimited Atonement is similar to the Arminian doctrine of Unlimited Atonement. Universalists just take it a step further and rightly say that the Atonement is effectual. Your trying to tie Calvinism with Universalism doesn't work.Hey BrckBrin. Really, as is true with TULIP, the problem can simply be moved. Consider: Universalists believe that the atonement is 100% efficacious for those who are unconditionally elected. There, it is the same now. :)

God Bless!

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 02:22 AM
I don't think you're understanding fully the analogy.



This would be God throwing the life saver and hoping people take hold of it. That's Arminianism. Calvinism says that God jumps overboard and actually saves some people. Universalism would say God jumps overboard and actually saves everybody.


Which makes for the Bigger, Most Powerful, Most Loving God?

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 02:23 AM
I remain convinced that God doesn't love all.

For God so loved the world...I know this verse. I'm sure everybody here can quote John 3:16 by heart.

What needs to be done is define world.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Did Christ take away the sin from those who are saved AND those who are unsaved?

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Is he the Savior of the unsaved as well as the saved?

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Does he give life to the unsaved as well as the saved?

To say that the "world" referred to here includes those who are unsaved along with those who are saved would be a form of, if not outright, universalism.

Anyway, back to topic. Show me that God loves those He has condemned. He killed so many through the flood. He killed many through the Israelites, women, children, and infants alike.

I want to believe that God loves all, just show me why I should believe it.

You believe all men are dead without Christ correct?

BrckBrln
Jan 5th 2009, 02:25 AM
Hey BrckBrin. Really, as is true with TULIP, the problem can simply be moved. Consider: Universalists believe that the atonement is 100% efficacious for those who are unconditionally elected. There, it is the same now. :)

God Bless!

But not everybody is unconditionally elected.

monergist
Jan 5th 2009, 02:26 AM
I intentionally did not answer it. Why should I try to go against the scriptures? The scriptures say God loves the whole world. Why say differently?

So, in order to get rid of things you do not understand (i.e. contradictions), you redefine love? Why not simply say your understanding is limited instead of changing the word of God to meet your personal thoughts?

You don't have a limited understanding? Congrats, you're the first.

The scriptures do not say, "God loves the whole world." You do. And you don't mean world in any other way than 1 possible way, which would make the scriptures nonsense if we were to apply that definition uniformly though scripture.

You're right, I don't understand how God loves the wicked in a salvific sense and hates them at the same time. I don't understand why God would send anyone to hell that he loves. I don't understand how anyone can possibly read Ephesians 2 and Romans 9 and come away with Arminian theology. I don't know why anyone would interpret scripture in such a way that results in obvious contradictions.

This is exactly why I didn't want to defend Calvinism here. I give thoughtful replies and show you how your interpretation of John 3:16 necessitates a contradiction in scripture, and you think you don't have to answer any questions.

:B

catlover
Jan 5th 2009, 02:27 AM
Someone could put me in his will to give me a million dollars, but unless I accept it, it's not mine and doesn't do me any good.

So, yes, God does love everyone. It's up to us to accept that love.

watchinginawe
Jan 5th 2009, 02:31 AM
Also, if you're going to group Calvinists in with universalists because "the agree with our theology on almost every point" then I guess it would be fair to say the same thing about Arminians and open theists. They do agree with Arminians in every way with respect to soteriology.I think the biggest similarity is basically as your username describes. Both Calvinists and Universalists believe in monergism, or God's sovereignty alone in soteriology. The only difference seems to be how many God intends to save.

God Bless!

monergist
Jan 5th 2009, 02:32 AM
No he didn't. He simply called it "reconciliation". Scripture says God loves the world. Calvinist say he doesn't.

Wrong. Calvinists do say that God loves the world. We don't use the 1 of 8 possible meanings of the word kosmos that would contradict the rest of scripture. Heaven forbid we try to interpret scripture so that it makes sense.

And you still have to answer any of my points in a meaningful way.

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 02:34 AM
No he didn't. He simply called it "reconciliation". Scripture says God loves the world. Calvinist say he doesn't.

You guys redefine it because it doesn't fit your system. "OH, I don't see how that can be true, so it must mean something else". With that kind of study, we could have just about any theology we wanted to have.

That's pretty much one of my biggest beefs with Calvinist. Instead of saying "I don't fully understand God and all he says" they say "He didn't really mean that, what he means is something totally different than what the scriptures say."

For instance, all Calivinist will say he loves the unelect on some level. Yet, still use verses of hate. Interestingly enough, they will say God loves and hate the same people then turn around and say God can't love and hate the same people. All so they can avoid contradictions. :rolleyes:

Great Post BrotherMark. What if we could all learn to say that there are some things about God that we simply don't know?

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 02:34 AM
You don't have a limited understanding? Congrats, you're the first.

Of course my understanding is limited. That's why I am quicker to say "I don't know" than I am to redefine words.


The scriptures do not say, "God loves the whole world."

It says he loves the world. Not a part of it. I simply believe what it says.


You do. And you don't mean world in any other way than 1 possible way, which would make the scriptures nonsense if we were to apply that definition uniformly though scripture.

So let's just change it to mean what we want it to mean. :rolleyes:


You're right, I don't understand how God loves the wicked in a salvific sense and hates them at the same time. I don't understand why God would send anyone to hell that he loves. I don't understand how anyone can possibly read Ephesians 2 and Romans 9 and come away with Arminian theology. I don't know why anyone would interpret scripture in such a way that results in obvious contradictions.

I have said nothing of arminianism. What I have said is that calvinist redefine words like "love" and "world" in order to keep their doctrine instead of bending their doctrine to keep the word of God.


This is exactly why I didn't want to defend Calvinism here. I give thoughtful replies and show you how your interpretation of John 3:16 necessitates a contradiction in scripture, and you think you don't have to answer any questions.

Well, you can always stop defending it.

I don't have to explain the scriptures. They are what they are. I just believe em. I hope my calvinist brothers will eventually do the same... just believe the word.

Just because it seems contradictory to you, doesn't make it so.

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 02:36 AM
Wrong. Calvinists do say that God loves the world. We don't use the 1 of 8 possible meanings of the word kosmos that would contradict the rest of scripture. Heaven forbid we try to interpret scripture so that it makes sense.

And you still have to answer any of my points in a meaningful way.

So which defintion of Kosmos do you use. Besides it only contradicts the rest of scripture because you are a Calvinist who has studied scripture from a Calvinistic point of view.

monergist
Jan 5th 2009, 02:36 AM
I give up. This is exactly why I can't go into apologetics.

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 02:36 AM
Wrong. Calvinists do say that God loves the world. We don't use the 1 of 8 possible meanings of the word kosmos that would contradict the rest of scripture. Heaven forbid we try to interpret scripture so that it makes sense.

Right. You say what GOd meant to say was he loved the elect. But for some strange reason, God didn't choose to use the word elect. He used world. :hmm:


And you still have to answer any of my points in a meaningful way.

No need. Scripture says God loves the world. Why explain it away? He's the propitiation for not only my sins, but for the sins of the whole world. I just believe what it says. No need to change the meaning.

watchinginawe
Jan 5th 2009, 02:38 AM
But not everybody is unconditionally elected.As I offered in my post to monergist, the Universalist view lines up with Calvinism in that God operates in salvation monergistically. With that tenet, all the points of TULIP line up. And the universalist would basically agree with you that not everybody is unconditionally elected in this life, but those that are do so by God's election alone. The others are saved by God's grace at a later time, thus elected at a different time than now.

The similarity that ties the two is monergism. How many different ways can monergism be viewed besides the number God decides to save?

God Bless!

BrckBrln
Jan 5th 2009, 02:40 AM
As I offered in my post to monergist, the Universalist view lines up with Calvinism in that God operates in salvation monergistically. With that tenet, all the points of TULIP line up. And the universalist would basically agree with you that not everybody is unconditionally elected in this life, but those that are do so by God's election alone. The others are saved by God's grace at a later time, thus elected at a different time than now.

The similarity that ties the two is monergism. How many different ways can monergism be viewed besides the number God decides to save?

God Bless!

And because both believe in monergism that makes Calvinism wrong?

RogerW
Jan 5th 2009, 02:41 AM
I intentionally did not answer it. Why should I try to go against the scriptures? The scriptures say God loves the whole world. Why say differently?

So, in order to get rid of things you do not understand (i.e. contradictions), you redefine love? Why not simply say your understanding is limited instead of changing the word of God to meet your personal thoughts?

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

This passage does not say that God loved the whole world. It tells us in what manner God loved the world; He gave His only begotten Son..

"For God in this manner (so) loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son"... "that whosoever believeth into (in) Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

It does NOT say He loved the whole world as you are. God loved the world by sending His Son. Does that mean that God loves the whole world, meaning every single human? No it does not! The passage tells us His love is limited to whosoever believeth in Him, and these alone have everlasting life. If God loved the whole world, meaning every human as you say, it makes zero sense for God to qualify His love by saying "whosoever believeth". If God loves the whole world as you say, why didn't He give His only begotten Son for every man? Why limit His only begotten Son to whosoever believes, if He loves all of them?

In this way God extends His love for the world, He gave His only begotten Son to whosoever believes, and they have everlasting life. All who are in the world, and believe in Christ are loved by God, and they alone have everlasting life. He who believeth not is condemned already!

Christ came to save the world! All the world (orderly arrangement; Kosmos) that God loves will be saved through Him. And every human in the world, who believes on Christ will be saved because God loves them. The rest of humanity, who remain in unbelief are not loved by God and are condemned already not believing in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 02:42 AM
Someone could put me in his will to give me a million dollars, but unless I accept it, it's not mine and doesn't do me any good.

So, yes, God does love everyone. It's up to us to accept that love.

No you just have a million dollars that you refuse to appropriate. Lets say that you know that you have a treasure buried in your back yard. You dig thirty feet and stop digging and the treasure is at 31 feet. Do you still own the treasure?

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 02:43 AM
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



In the words of Ronald Reagan "There you go again". It simply means he loves the world. Those that believe get saved. Those that don't go to hell. But he loves the world. That's why he sent his Son.

It doesn't say he loves part of the world. Nor does it say he loves only those that believe. It says "For God so loved the world that..." It doesn't say he loves the elect (though he does). But calvinist sure will make it say that he loves the elect and only the elect even though, God in his infinite wisdom, chose to use the word "world" there instead of "elect".

watchinginawe
Jan 5th 2009, 02:47 AM
And because both believe in monergism that makes Calvinism wrong?No, not at all. I really am trying to add understanding. :hmm: However, if I could choose how I believe, I wouldn't believe in monergism. There is very little (actually no) risk involved in having a wrong belief if monergism is true. If I did come to an understanding of monergism, I would probably have to switch online forums because I would most likely be a Universalist. Again, how can you go wrong (if you have the ability to believe what you choose to believe) with the broadest possible view of God's grace if monergism is true? What could possibly be the consequence?

God Bless!

RogerW
Jan 5th 2009, 02:48 AM
I give up. This is exactly why I can't go into apologetics.

Greetings Monergist,

Welcome! Don't give up, you're not alone. We are out-numbered but look at poor Paul...

Many Blessings & Prayer
RW

RogerW
Jan 5th 2009, 02:59 AM
In the words of Ronald Reagan "There you go again". It simply means he loves the world. Those that believe get saved. Those that don't go to hell. But he loves the world. That's why he sent his Son.

It doesn't say he loves part of the world. Nor does it say he loves only those that believe. It says "For God so loved the world that..." It doesn't say he loves the elect (though he does). But calvinist sure will make it say that he loves the elect and only the elect even though, God in his infinite wisdom, chose to use the word "world" there instead of "elect".

Absolutely! God loves His kosmos (world), and it will be saved through His only begotten Son. If you make His orderly creation every human then you must be consistant and do so throughout Scripture. (Oh boy now you've got real problems) Also you have created a god whose love for every human is not enough to keep them from condemnation. He loves every single human, but gives the Son to only those who believe...what kind of love is this? And all the while God knowing there are none righteous, no, not one, there are none who will ever believe apart from His saving grace...this god of love you've created is not the God of Scripture.

Blessings,
RW

monergist
Jan 5th 2009, 03:00 AM
Greetings Monergist,

Welcome! Don't give up, you're not alone. We are out-numbered but look at poor Paul...

Many Blessings & Prayer
RW

Thanks brother. I love my Arminian brothers and sisters. I love my family, and there are many people in my family that are wrong about many things. Years ago I decided to stop trying to convince them into making sense and just love them. So, I'm going to just love these brothers and sisters. We will all be together in glory, and someday we'll look back on these discussions and laugh.

God bless.

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 03:00 AM
No, not at all. I really am trying to add understanding. :hmm: However, if I could choose how I believe, I wouldn't believe in monergism. There is very little (actually no) risk involved in having a wrong belief if monergism is true. If I did come to an understanding of monergism, I would probably have to switch online forums because I would most likely be a Universalist. Again, how can you go wrong (if you have the ability to believe what you choose to believe) with the broadest possible view of God's grace if monergism is true? What could possibly be the consequence?

God Bless!
It might not be that simple. As I see true monergists believe in the doctrine of irresistable grace. A Universalist might argue that God will eventually humble every person until they accept what Christ did for them; God's grace. I think that Calvinists don't believe that they have a choice in accepting Grace.

alethos
Jan 5th 2009, 03:01 AM
I remain convinced that God doesn't love all.

For God so loved the world...I know this verse. I'm sure everybody here can quote John 3:16 by heart.

What needs to be done is define world.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Did Christ take away the sin from those who are saved AND those who are unsaved?

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

Is he the Savior of the unsaved as well as the saved?

For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

Does he give life to the unsaved as well as the saved?

To say that the "world" referred to here includes those who are unsaved along with those who are saved would be a form of, if not outright, universalism.

Anyway, back to topic. Show me that God loves those He has condemned. He killed so many through the flood. He killed many through the Israelites, women, children, and infants alike.

I want to believe that God loves all, just show me why I should believe it.

Sorry, I don't buy your position.

Seems mighty odd to me that God tells us to love even our enemies, and then goes and sets a bad example for us by not loving certain individuals. That would mean God holds us to a higher standard than He Himself is willing to demonstrate.


.

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 03:07 AM
Sorry, I don't buy your position.

Seems mighty odd to me that God tells us to love even our enemies, and then goes and sets a bad example for us by not loving certain individuals. That would mean God holds us to a higher standard than He Himself is willing to demonstrate.


.

Great Comment. Calvinists and Arminians alike have a problem with this.

BTW I love you signature.:pp

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 03:08 AM
Great Comment. Calvinists and Arminians alike have a problem with this.

BTW I love you signature.:pp

I don't consider myself an arminian. But I do believe people end up in hell, even though God loved them.

watchinginawe
Jan 5th 2009, 03:14 AM
It might not be that simple. As I see true monergists believe in the doctrine of irresistable grace. A Universalist might argue that God will eventually humble every person until they accept what Christ did for them; God's grace. I think that Calvinists don't believe that they have a choice in accepting Grace.I think it probably is that simple Mike. The thought is that man will not resist God (cannot and will not ultimately thwart God's will in His grace) in His efforts at saving. It simply works 100% of the time in both theologies. So I think the ideas are basically the same.

Maybe we can look at the finer points if this goes to contro.

God Bless!

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 03:16 AM
I don't consider myself an arminian. But I do believe people end up in hell, even though God loved them.

My comment was about God holding us to a higher standard than He holds himself to.

What would you consider yourself to be?

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 03:19 AM
I think it probably is that simple Mike. The thought is that man will not resist God in His efforts at saving. It simply works 100% of the time in both theologies. So I think the ideas are basically the same.

Maybe we can look at the finer points if this goes to contro.

God Bless!

Monergism is pretty new to me so I don't claim to know the finer intracacies of it but I see your point. Thanks.

Mike

Brother Mark
Jan 5th 2009, 03:21 AM
My comment was about God holding us to a higher standard than He holds himself to.

I know. And we can both agree that he doesn't hold himself to a lower standard than he holds us to. However, that "love" in 'love your enemies' is not agape.


What would you consider yourself to be? I don't know the right answer to that question. It seems on the board one is either arminian, calvinist, or universalist. Though most people I meet agree with some points of calvin but not all and the same with arminian.

mikebr
Jan 5th 2009, 03:26 AM
I know. And we can both agree that he doesn't hold himself to a lower standard than he holds us to. However, that "love" in 'love your enemies' is not agape.

I don't know the right answer to that question. It seems on the board one is either arminian, calvinist, or universalist. Though most people I meet agree with some points of calvin but not all and the same with arminian.

Beth Moore says that Arminians and Calvinists are both right in what they assert and both wrong in what they deny. I don't think that Beth is a Universalist. I haven't really thought out what the implications of what she is saying.

Butch5
Jan 5th 2009, 03:33 AM
Does God Love all? Is salvation for all men?



John 1:4-9 ( KJV ) 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John says, the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.




John came to bear witness to the light (Christ) that all through Him might believe. So, we come back to "all". What does all mean?




8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


Christ, the light, that lights "every man that comes into the world". So "all" means every single man, in this context. So the life, the light of men, comes to every single person.

Yukerboy
Jan 5th 2009, 05:18 AM
You believe all men are dead without Christ correct?

Absolutely.

Which is exactly why the analogy of a drowning man is wrong.

Most Christians believe that people are drowning and God gives them the chance to be saved from drowning. Some will reach out for that life preserver, some will not.

I believe that there are all these drowned people, dead bodies floating in the sea. God then pulls some out of the water and breathes life into these lifeless bodies he has chosen to save.

I did not wish for this to boil down to an arminian vs. calvinist discussion. I want to be convicnes that God loves all through Scripture.

So far, the one that moves me is the one who said that God would not hold us to a higher standard than He has. Telling us to love our enemies, yet He would not be willing to. That I can understand.

But then, we don't know which of those enemies will become saved. He does.

Chimon
Jan 5th 2009, 05:19 AM
Some scholars have said that there are different kinds of love, and that God has a different type of love for all creation than he does versus the elect. They distinguish 5 types of love, being inter-tritarian, general, humanitarian, electoral, and conditional.

Inter-tritarian- refers to the love within the Godhead for other members of the Trinity
General- refers to Gods love for all created things
Humanitarian- refers to God's love for all humans
Electoral- God's love for the saints
Conditional- God's love (or 'favor') as merited by circumstance or action

Note that this is not a distinction by vocabulary words, because the Bible uses only two words for love in Greek and only three in Hebrew. Secondly, ἀγάπη is the only word for love used with frequency in the Greek (φιλέω occurs only 12 times). This is a distinction based on context and usage, (just as english speakers use 'love' and mena many different things).

I think this resolves the issue fairly well.