You have to believe: “God is contradicting Himself”, since it would not be consistent with His Love to not save everyone. While it is totally consistent with an all Loving God to save: all those, who of their own free will, are willing to accept salvation and not save all those who do not want to be saved “go to a place of only Godly type Love”. God is not going to force his Love, salvation on people and kidnap them to heaven.
I am not the one needing God or Christ to lie, as seen in the above answer.
It is of your own opinion that in order to prove He's loving God needs to save everyone. And it is of Jesus's own saying that He will lose nothing.
So.... since we know not everyone is redeemed; by your own belief system, both God is unloving and Jesus is a liar.
If you go with "Jesus is not a liar"; than you have to admit something is wrong with your notion that God can not be loving because He does not save everyone. Remember though, if you want to argue "what is fair"; "fair" would mean everyone ends up in the lake of fire because all are guilty of sin.
God just can't pretend sin is not there. It HAS to be atoned for. If God could just ignore it and just pardon them without their needing to be atoned for, there'd be no need for the crucifixion.
God decided before time began to save all who would accept His Charity.
This is not what the Scripture says though. Romans 9:11 is very clear, "before they'd done good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works but of Him (God) who calls."
Now you try to make the argument that Romans 9 is some form of literary device that Paul is using illustrating the contrast between Jew and Gentile. Except.... Jacob and Esau had the same mother and father. So, therefore it was not of genetic heritage that one was elect and the other wasn't.
(Which is the argument the Jews make even to this day; that they are "God's chosen people" because they are descendants of Abraham. (We won't get into the technicality that most modern Jews aren't even genetically Semitic; that's a different issue, linked to the fact that Jesus said the disobedient of the nation would be destroyed and "Israel" the earthly entity would actually cease to exist.) Yet that is indeed the argument made; that because of some ancestor in the distant past, God sees me more favorably than He sees you.)
Romans 9:10-13 illustrate this truth specifically that election is of God's own prerogative because there is no doubt that Jacob and Esau came from the same parents. In order to have twins, they have to be conceived at the same time; so it's not like one could even argue they had different fathers (which would account for why one was favored and the other was not).
No, as far as actual medical science has been able to determine; it's not even possible they would have had different fathers. Some claim based on alleged "outcomes" of paternity suits that it is possible for fraternal twins to have different fathers. That concept has been around since ancient times and twin pregnancies was often the grounds for accusing a woman of adultery in the past.
Yet medical research papers cite that the "research" in all these paternity cases is dubious at best. At least in situations where conception has not occurred on account of human intervention with the use of fertility treatment methods. There are cases where medical intervention has conceived fraternal twins with different fathers because of mistakes of donor mixups at the fertilization state, or implanting the wrong embryo.
As far as natural conception goes though; that possibility becomes far more remote, seeing how the window of opportunity for conception is only actually about 24 hours at the point the egg is released from the ovary. Sperm are only viable inside a female body for about 3 days; which if they are already present at the time the egg emerges from the ovary, there is a good chance fertilization will occur.
Medical science has also discovered that in cases of sperm present from multiple sources; the sperm that was "there first" will actually attack and kill the other sperm. And seeing how changes that take place within the female body occurs within 24 hours after conception, prevent the release of additional eggs, in order for fraternal twins to be conceived, both eggs have been released within that 24 hour window. So though the theoretical possibility of fraternal twins having different fathers is plausible; unless one is looking at a mother who's actually had multiple partners within that 24 hour window (for example - a prostitute), the probability is pretty remote.
So getting back to Romans 9; Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau to prove the point that the determining factor of who is elect solely resides within God's prerogative. If that was not the force of the point he was making; he would have used Issac and Ishmael as his example; because they clearly had different mothers.
And if you have any doubt as to what the meaning of those verses in Romans 9 are; the following verses (in the same passage) are pretty clear.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
So, stick with what the Scripture actually says, instead of claiming a passage's meaning is ambiguous based on the use of some "literary device".
