Can Someone Explain This To Me Please?

[Loren T.]

I'm not so sure that's what the bible actually says. That is, maybe salvation has more than one meaning. I tend to think that if God wants to save the entire world, then God will indeed save the entire world. We already know that according to the gospel, salvation isn't something we can earn by works. But how weird then, to make it contingent on man's ability to believe the exact right thing about a saviour, whom arguably most of the world has never even heard of (most people may have heard about Jesus, but don't really know who he is according to the bible).

It's what the Bible says over and over and over again. Salvation is contingent upon belief. Yes, it seems too simple, and yes, we want to think we can earn it. As far as believing "the exact right thing about a saviour", all we really have to know is that he died for us and that his death and resurrection saves us. Even a child can understand that. It may be weird to us, but it's the wisdom of God.

don't know, but apparently he could be in the presence of evil for at least 33 years, even to the point of eating with sinners and washing their feet, so I don't see why he wouldn't hold out even longer.

And it must have been excruciating for the part of him that was fully God. If we truly love him, we would also not want to put him through the agony again that he has already endured for us.

But that's what would happen had Hitler turned to Christ at the end of his life, right?

Speaking of Hitler, Christians will say one second that he was unjust for torturing people for a few years before killing them, including children, and the next second God's eternal torture of those very same people is just a sign of his righteousness. It clearly doesn't figure, but I sense that you don't believe in hell in the usual Christian sense.

Perhaps you didn't see the part where I specified and unrepentant Hitler? A repentant Hitler would be a totally different person. The usual Christian sense of hell is all over the place. But we mostly agree that it means separation from God's goodness, at minimum.

QUOTE="holo, post: 73059609, member: 21467"]But the bible doesn't say that the price is pride, though. It says the price has already been paid, and as far as I can tell, just as we didn't choose to be born as sinners, we can't choose to be children of God either. Both conditions are God's work and decision.[/QUOTE]


I'm not really sure what you mean. The chief and first sin has always been pride. It's what made Satan fall, it's what made Eve eat the apple, it's the basis of most every other sin. It's thinking we know better than God does what is best. It's what keeps many from bowing to God.

But again, does salvation depend on my ability to repent? If so, that sounds pretty much like it depends on me. My ability to understand something or feel something. Like I must experience some measure (how much exactly by the way?) of guilt in order to be saved. When you boil it down, that sounds like salvation every bit as much a result of man's ability than the Pharisees' incistence that one can somehow "earn" salvation.

Where does it say we can't choose to be children of God? I can quote you hundreds of verses that say we can choose to have faith. We can't save ourselves, but we can choose to allow him to work in us when he enlightens us to our need.

[

But again, does salvation depend on my ability to repent? If so, that sounds pretty much like it depends on me. My ability to understand something or feel something. Like I must experience some measure (how much exactly by the way?) of guilt in order to be saved. When you boil it down, that sounds like salvation every bit as much a result of man's ability than the Pharisees' incistence that one can somehow "earn" salvation.

First, no one can earn salvation. That's exactly the point. Of course, you have to experience guilt. If you never felt guilt, why would you repent? Ability? No, it requires zero ability to do anything. What it does require the the humility to let go of the idea that you have the ability to save yourself. Faith is the opposite of self reliance, and maybe that's why so few people get it.

 

[Loren T.]

I do not understand the big conflict here other than is disrupts tradition. Because no where in the bible does it say God is all loving... so then if you want to know the God of the bible why force this title when He never claimed it? You can not be spirit filled if you do not know God. Telling God he is all loving when the bible clearly does not assign that attribute to Him means you do not know the God of the bible. rather you have created a god based on the bible to worship. it is similar to the God of the bible but your god is all loving where the God of the bible says he hates certain people.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ..."

So, you think we are to be more loving than God?

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all,"

I don't know, for some reason, I just believe that all means all, instead of re interpreting clear verses.

 

[Loren T.]

again the bible is the key to what God looks like, and he is not all loving. The chapter of roman 9 tells us this in a whole chapter. you can't argue a whole chapter is out of context.. In this instance Paul says clearly God hated those people and damned them to Hell, even so in that Passage Paul says we are not in a position to judge God. for he raise a king and a people up just so his power can be displayed by obliterating those monsters! striking fear in all who would challenge the jews.

Did God cause Pharoah to be evil? In every case, the people God used had already chosen evil. Go read every old testament passage Paul refers to. The potter and the clay, for example, is about how if a nation who disobeys God, he will change his mind and punish and if they relent, he will relent.
Nothing in Romans 9 obliterates mens choices, some have just been taught to read it that way.

 

[Loren T.]

Something else in that chapter to consider verse 13: As the Scriptures say, “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.”
Do you understand the implications here? This hatred is not limited to two men but to ALL of their descendants... That is alot of people. One moved on to be God's chosen the other... to be the evil God needs to temper and sharpen his chosen.

Why did God choose one nation over the other? Simple. He knew what their deeds would be and he hated their evil. BTW, Jesus also said to hate your brother and mother. Do you think this means literal hate?

 

[holo]

It's what the Bible says over and over and over again. Salvation is contingent upon belief. Yes, it seems too simple, and yes, we want to think we can earn it. As far as believing "the exact right thing about a saviour", all we really have to know is that he died for us and that his death and resurrection saves us. Even a child can understand that. It may be weird to us, but it's the wisdom of God.

Again, I'm not so sure salvation has only one meaning. For example, salvation in the sense of going to heaven was a completely foreign concept to the Jews. There's no such thing as heaven or hell in the OT, it's just "the heavens" and hades/sheol, which basically means the unknown. When they talked about being saved, it wasn't in the sense of going to heaven when you die.

And that's by the way a pretty strong clue that the Christian idea of heaven and hell are waaaay off the mark. It would be strange indeed if God waited until Jesus came to even tell people there is a fiery hell awaiting those who don't believe.

And I'm not so sure even a child can understand that. If it depends on our understanding, then there's first the problem of all the people who simply don't get to hear it, as well as those who hear a distorted version of it, or all the actual children and mentally challenged people who are unable to grasp even the concept of dying. The whole "age of accountability" thing is, as far as I can tell, not in the bible. It seems to me the bible says that we are sinners by birth, not by actions (and likewise made righteous by being "born again").

And it must have been excruciating for the part of him that was fully God. If we truly love him, we would also not want to put him through the agony again that he has already endured for us.

I'm not so sure we can really hurt God's feelings. Let's say I'm the most righteous and loving person who ever lived. Would that make it harder for me to be with my children when they disobey? It's not like I have to turn away from them because I'm more perfect than them. I can't offer God anything. And besides, us being sinners and all, is His decision, not ours.

I'm not really sure what you mean. The chief and first sin has always been pride. It's what made Satan fall, it's what made Eve eat the apple, it's the basis of most every other sin. It's thinking we know better than God does what is best. It's what keeps many from bowing to God.

What I mean is that I don't believe that we must "give" God some minimum amount of shame or guilt in order for him to save us. Indeed, as far as I can tell, he has already saved us. In fact, he decided that that's how it was going to happen before he created the world.

Of course it's possible that God chose to hurt himself by creating beings and predestine them to reject him forever, but I don't think that's very plausible.

Where does it say we can't choose to be children of God? I can quote you hundreds of verses that say we can choose to have faith. We can't save ourselves, but we can choose to allow him to work in us when he enlightens us to our need

Please quote some of them to me. I can't think of any verse that says faith is a choice. But there are several that say faith is a gift, even that it's given in different measure to different people. And take Paul, for example. He didn't choose to believe. He came to believe because Jesus chose to reveal himself to him. It doesn't appear he had any say in the matter, I mean "these are the things you shall endure for me" and all the "God predestined us from before the foundations of the world" and so forth.

Or Judas, what choice did he have? He did what he had to do, what God had planned. Had he had free will, maybe he wouldn't have betrayed Jesus. Or Pharaoh, for that mattered. He didn't choose to harden his heart. God did.

First, no one can earn salvation. That's exactly the point. Of course, you have to experience guilt. If you never felt guilt, why would you repent? Ability? No, it requires zero ability to do anything. What it does require the the humility to let go of the idea that you have the ability to save yourself. Faith is the opposite of self reliance, and maybe that's why so few people get it.

I kind of follow you there, but I think the gospel is even more radical than that. If I understand you correctly, salvation ultimately depends on our emotions, which in turn depend on our intellects. I find it very strange that God would first pay the price of the salvation of ALL mankind, and then reserving it for those who hear the gospel and respond with the appropriate emotions.

 

[Serving Zion]

Hello holo, I like your thinking, but I can see that you're suffering a perspective of the scriptures that seems to not so well reflect the attitude that Jesus brought (eg: Matthew 21:43-44).

I just want to show you a few things and see what you might make of it.

Again, I'm not so sure salvation has only one meaning. For example, salvation in the sense of going to heaven was a completely foreign concept to the Jews. There's no such thing as heaven or hell in the OT, it's just "the heavens" and hades/sheol, which basically means the unknown. When they talked about being saved, it wasn't in the sense of going to heaven when you die.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 comes to mind, as does Acts 23:7-8, showing that there's more diversity of thought in Judaism than you are allowing for. Plus, Christianity actually is Judaism (Acts 15:19), but where the false teachers have taken it of their own accord (John 10:1, 2 Peter 2:2), it has become something that is demonic instead (with varying degrees of depravity - Mark 3:25).

The whole "age of accountability" thing is, as far as I can tell, not in the bible.

Luke 12:47, John 15:22, James 4:17, Ecclesiastes 7:29.

Furthermore, I put to you that the doctrine of babies being depraved at birth did not evolve until the gentile early church fathers were grafted in, so it was entirely unthinkable to the writers of the scriptures.

It seems to me the bible says that we are sinners by birth,

You'd better check that, because ultimately, all those who teach so are unable to see what the words of those scriptures are actually saying. It's a most peculiar behaviour, but they truly are unable to hear what we say and to cooperate in reasonable conversation as long as their mind is held captive by that thinking (see "confirmation bias", 1 John 4:6).

not by actions

Sin is, by nature, an offence. So an offence cannot happen unless it has actually happened (James 1:15, James 4:17).

(and likewise made righteous by being "born again").

This is where your particular Christian background has set you up to reject Christianity by eventually finding that it is unjust. When you sort out your doctrine, to see that children are born blameless and then shaped in the image of the fallen world, when they are eventually lured into sin and death (per James 1:14-16), then they must be born "again" (speaking in spiritual terms, that a person may see the kingdom of God).

I think this page could be helpful for that.

I'm not so sure we can really hurt God's feelings. Let's say I'm the most righteous and loving person who ever lived. Would that make it harder for me to be with my children when they disobey? It's not like I have to turn away from them because I'm more perfect than them.

It is the one who has the sin that cannot endure the righteous presence (John 3:19-21, 1 Timothy 6:16, Isaiah 59:1-2).

I can't offer God anything.

Oh, I don't know about that.. (eg: Isaiah 6:8).

And besides, us being sinners and all, is His decision, not ours.

.. which denomination has taught you to think like this? (James 1:13, 1 Corinthians 10:13, John 10:10).

Or Judas, what choice did he have?

Matthew 26:14-16 makes it seem pretty deliberate.

He did what he had to do, what God had planned.

Had he had free will, maybe he wouldn't have betrayed Jesus.

It wasn't that he lacked free will, but love. See the preceding verses Matthew 26:6-13, where Judas had thought he was doing good by suggesting that the money be spent for the poor, but he suffered humiliation instead of praise. Consider Matthew 19:23-26.

Or Pharaoh, for that mattered. He didn't choose to harden his heart.

Not true (Exodus 7:14, Exodus 8:32).

God did.

True (Isaiah 55:9, Proverbs 21:30, Proverbs 1:7).

 

[Loren T.]

I kind of follow you there, but I think the gospel is even more radical than that. If I understand you correctly, salvation ultimately depends on our emotions, which in turn depend on our intellects. I find it very strange that God would first pay the price of the salvation of ALL mankind, and then reserving it for those who hear the gospel and respond with the appropriate emotions.

It's not about emotion or intellect. It's about responding with humility to the Spirit. As far you finding it very strange, it is strange to us as humans, but it's what God decided to do. It's also Biblical. What he predestined was the means of salvation, not individuals.. I also have no idea where you are coming from, since you have only said what you don't believe, not what you do. Are you a universalist?

 

[drich0150]

Again, maybe salvation has more than one meaning. Perhaps there's the salvation in this world, which is obviously just for those who get to hear the gospel, and a final salvation for all mankind. As I said there are certainly verses that seem to say that.

Do you not see you have to speak or make up a narrative that the bible is not saying for itself??? Why do that? why speak where the bible is silent if your beliefs are based in the truth of the bible? Speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent or at minimum know when you are speaking apart from what the bible has to say. Don't compromise scripture for the sake of some tradition or doctrine.

Maybe you're right. I'll have to look more closely if the bible actually says God loves everyone.

Again it does not there are chapters (romans 9 comes to mind) where there are lists of people/tribes and individuals. God hates.

It's always been a given in the faith I grew up in, sort of like the idea that humans have free will. It blew my mind when I realised how many verses seem to say the exact opposite.

we can not be free if we are slaves to sin. None of us can will a sin free life. not till we die, then we will be free from the bonds of sin and can live the life that we want. Not that it is ok to sin we must choose (choice not being free will) but choose to hate sin and love God. even if our bodies keep sinning.

But take "God is not willing that any should perish," for example. Doesn't that mean God doesn't want anybody to be lost?

no different than God so loved the world.. God love was so big if the world repented He could have welcomed everyone. if this is true then it is also true to say He wishes none should parish. So what about those in whom he hates? I'm sure they might not the same welcome a long lost son would receive, but at the same time if a hated one repents and loves as we are commanded to love then their would be nothing for God to hate about that person. If you read God hates those who are self serving or those who sin is such away as to destroy others or those who sin and take out scores of believers. that is why gossip is higher on the list of sins God hates more than raper or murder. Because a gossip can destroy a church and all who once believed in it.

Why indeed. I'm not so sure that anybody but satan will go to hell, certainly not in the sense of being punished indefinitely.

that is written in scripture. that Hell is forever and satan will burn forever. Not to say none of us will be sent to Hell.. it's just we will be consumed by Hell fire at some point. if God is just our exposure to hell fire will only last as long as the nature of our sins. meaning I hope hitler burns a little longer than the rest of us.

Yes, "Esau I hated" and "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh" and so forth. I don't see why, or even how, God could create men, make them do evil, and then hating them for it. Judgment is one thing, but hating his own creation... I mean, God is love, no? Does "hate" in those verses mean hate in the way we use it?

yes. the idea is the same. look at what paul say about the potter. from the same clay is it not the potter who decide to make a vessel for a place of honor, and then make another for dishonor? The question being asked isn't the same building material used for making a cooking pot or a plate, as is use to make a poop pot/toilet pot or something of great dishonor?

Why would the potter do this? because both are needed. life needs cooking vessels and life demands we sanitarily remove our waste/contain it. if we don't all the honorable pottery in the world won't be able to save us. Like wise we need the bad to forge, the good we need evil to test and sharpen the righteous. God already knows who will and who will, not bring him hornor. So then why not use those who are evil to bring about the good?

Again God and Christ points out through out the bible not all are HIS children. more than a few belong to satan. Would it then not be a righteous' God responsibility to 'weed out' those who seek to do us harm? those who would seek to undermine him and his authority?

 

[drich0150]

On your end is your interpretation of the bible, my friend. Just like on mine.

BUT if you are not reading the passages provided, you are not interpreting the bible. you are interpreting the religion. big difference! the religion is NOT what shows us the God of the bible.

But surely not all of Jacob's descendants will be saved, and all of Esau's will be lost?

Again not for us to decide. but ask your self why God hated them, and if they repented of what God hated what would there be left to hate?

 

[drich0150]

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ..."

So, you think we are to be more loving than God?

my confused brother what makes you say that? even if I could bring my self to remember everyone who has ever slighted me in any way and prayed my eye out.. that would get absolutley no one any closer to heaven than they already are. My willing to forgive others only secures my own place. Like wise (i don't know that God would pray aside from Christ while living on earth) God so loved the world... meaning if the world would have repented God's love and sacrifice would be big enough to encapsulate the whole world and all sin... How ever if you keep reading this is not what God did. his salvation is only reserved for those who believe in his son... God's love did not save the world. it could have but didn't. God's love saves those who believe.
So then how is me praying for people who hate me, in your mine bigger than having a love that could have encompassed all sin? Because no matter who I pray for they are no closer to heaven, while even if God does not let everyone in all who 'believe' do get in. If that were only one person it would me God's love is greater than my own.

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

No God is Agape' which has little to do with our understanding of the word. Agape' is conditional As God is conditional.
4 eLove is patient and fkind; love gdoes not envy or boast; it his not arrogant idoes not insist on its own way; it jis not irritable or resentful;2 kdoes not rejoice at wrongdoing, but lrejoices with the truth. mLove bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, eendures all things.
to which all of these things are boundless through God for those in whom He loves.

"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all,"

scrap book theology you don't even quote the whole verse you just cut and paste fragments changing what the bible says. This is a deplorable/bad practice.. That passage in romans speaks to the broader sin of the jews and speaks how through the promise given to the jews that the gentiles are also saved. that has no application here sport.

I don't know, for some reason, I just believe that all means all, instead of re interpreting clear verses.

All mean jew and gentile alike sport. if you were to reframe that passage it would then be clear. your clareity came in the way of striping the passage down and airing it with your own personal thoughts! That is scarry business.. Taking the Spirit inspired word, altering it and then try and reframe it as the word of God.

Thanks but no thanks I will not be playing this game with you.

 

[drich0150]

Why did God choose one nation over the other? Simple. He knew what their deeds would be and he hated their evil. BTW, Jesus also said to hate your brother and mother. Do you think this means literal hate?

So yeah... Miseo is the word luke 14:27 in some cases Full on Hate separates families of believers. Maybe what you don't get is in this form of hate there is no malice, anger or need to be unforgiving. Hate is an emotional dislike. emotion being apposed to reasonable dislike.
Strongs G3404:
μισέω miséō, mis-eh'-o; from a primary μῖσος mîsos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less:—hate(-ful).

1. to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
   
   
2. to be hated, detested

If you pair this with the google dictionary definition, both work. that doesn't mean you don't have a ramped up version of hate you hold close to your chest.. It just means hate can be accomplished without malice or unforgiveness.
hate
hāt/
verb

1. 1.
   feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
   "the boys hate each other"
   

 

[Loren T.]

All mean jew and gentile alike sport. if you were to reframe that passage it would then be clear. your clareity came in the way of striping the passage down and airing it with your own personal thoughts! That is scarry business.. Taking the Spirit inspired word, altering it and then try and reframe it as the word of God.

Really? So which all doesn't mean "all"? Did God allow all to sin, or only jews and gentiles? And if the first all means all people, how can the second "all" mean something else?

 

[Chinchilla]

Why did God choose one nation over the other? Simple. He knew what their deeds would be and he hated their evil. BTW, Jesus also said to hate your brother and mother. Do you think this means literal hate?

No , if you don't honor Mother or Father you break one of 10 commandments .

Simply God can't tell you medicore word because he can speak only truth , so hot or cold , even if something is not possible to keep like love your neighbour as yourself he told us to keep , we try but it's impossible ( that would mean if you buy yourself a new tv you buy one to your neighbour also ).

That passage means , if you have to decide between what your Mom and Dad say and God you choose God , if you love the one you hate the other , so you by choosing God love him but by not choosing parents in that situation you hate them .

Example : Muslim guy wants to be converted to christianity , mom and dad say they gonna remove his part of inheritance and throw him on street untill he repents .

He choose God so he hates his parents and they hate him , but it was wise choice .

 

[drich0150]

Really? So which all doesn't mean "all"? Did God allow all to sin, or only jews and gentiles? And if the first all means all people, how can the second "all" mean something else?

Not what i said... straw man argument.

mess that cause your confusion:
So, you think we are to be more loving than God?

"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."

"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all,"

I don't know, for some reason, I just believe that all means all, instead of re interpreting clear verses.

you are mixing a loaded question, one I never asked stated or pretended to be more loving that God. So you start with a loaded question then take 1/2 a verse from 1st john and 1/2 a verse from Paul in Romans lop off any grounding context and use the naked pretext to support your own feelings!

I pointed out God is far more than our Idea of love generally conveys. to love or to Agape' means more than what we assign to this emotion. not only that I cleared up the notion that we can love more than God.. another strawman exaggeration to red herring yourself off of topic and into a mud fight. So right there everything would have been cleared up but I decided to also show you the error in your misquoting of romans 11. in the God was speaking about how salvation originated with the jews and how they sin. Now the law was only ever meant to judge those who were God chosen/jews. all else were considered 'gentile.'

Here is what Romans 11 says:32 All people have refused to obey God. And he has put them all together as people who don’t obey him so that he can show mercy to everyone.

Do you see why your reading fails? it says God can show mercy to everyone.. not God will... Not God must... Not God is going to... God can meaning there is conditions.

In context God saved or sought out the jews first. put them under the law which meant they must be saved from it. Then we learn further in the chapter they fell away from God so we gentiles could come in (which puts us under the law, just like the jews, which mean both sin and also be saved.

Now we are together as people who do not obey God just so He Can show mercy to Everyone at once.

It does not say all will be shown mercy as you teach it. Rather all meaning the Jews and the gentiles were put under the law so both at the same time MAY be redeemed by the same blood.

This verse says the same thing I say when I point out That God so loved the world.. Not God loved the world so much he saved all of it.. It means God's love was so big for the world that if all repented God could encompass all who ever lived. but like romans 11 states He does not save everyone just all who seek redemption.

Do you argue there will be people/human souls in Hell?

 

[Loren T.]

Here is what Romans 11 says:32 All people have refused to obey God. And he has put them all together as people who don’t obey him so that he can show mercy to everyone.

Do you see why your reading fails? it says God can show mercy to everyone.. not God will... Not God must... Not God is going to... God can meaning there is conditions.

Of course, the condition for receiving salvation is belief. And I'm not taking out the context.

30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

"Everyone" is universal. God's atonement is for all. Not all will receive it, because not all will believe. You are missing the forest for the trees, IMO.

You claim there are entire races that God hates. This is not what is being taught in Romans. I say he shows mercy to all, by offering grace to everyone, but not all receive grace because they love darkness and self and refuse him.

 

[Loren T.]

That passage means , if you have to decide between what your Mom and Dad say and God you choose God , if you love the one you hate the other , so you by choosing God love him but by not choosing parents in that situation you hate them .

Example : Muslim guy wants to be converted to christianity , mom and dad say they gonna remove his part of inheritance and throw him on street untill he repents .

He choose God so he hates his parents and they hate him , but it was wise choice .

God says love your enemies. The fact that your enemies in this case are you parents doesn't mean you don't love them. It means to prefer one over the other. God prefered Issac for the father of Israel to Esau. Doesn't mean he didn't love Esau. We prefer God over everyone in our lives, but we don't hate them, we just love God more.
We don't know if Esau was ultimately saved or damned. Many people use the verse about Esau and Jacob to say Esau was chosen for hell. But Genesis 33 seems to show a far different man than the arrogant and foolish younger Esau, but we are never told whether he truly repented or not. And it isn't as if Issac was not just as sinful, in some ways he was worse.

 

[holo]

Do you not see you have to speak or make up a narrative that the bible is not saying for itself??? Why do that? why speak where the bible is silent if your beliefs are based in the truth of the bible? Speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent or at minimum know when you are speaking apart from what the bible has to say. Don't compromise scripture for the sake of some tradition or doctrine.

That doesn't really answer what I wrote, but if I'm reading you right, if I don't agree with you about what the bible says, it's because I'm making up narratives and compromising scripture. If that's how you really feel, let me know and we can just end the discussion right away, because it's not going to be meaningful.

Again it does not there are chapters (romans 9 comes to mind) where there are lists of people/tribes and individuals. God hates.

I know about those verses. What I'm wondering is what the word hate means in the context and in the original language. Also if the hate is eternal.

we can not be free if we are slaves to sin. None of us can will a sin free life. not till we die, then we will be free from the bonds of sin and can live the life that we want. Not that it is ok to sin we must choose (choice not being free will) but choose to hate sin and love God. even if our bodies keep sinning.

I think we mostly agree about free will. That has probably been the biggest shift for me in how I understand the bible.

no different than God so loved the world.. God love was so big if the world repented He could have welcomed everyone. if this is true then it is also true to say He wishes none should parish. So what about those in whom he hates? I'm sure they might not the same welcome a long lost son would receive, but at the same time if a hated one repents and loves as we are commanded to love then their would be nothing for God to hate about that person.

Sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying here.

Again God and Christ points out through out the bible not all are HIS children. more than a few belong to satan. Would it then not be a righteous' God responsibility to 'weed out' those who seek to do us harm? those who would seek to undermine him and his authority?

I have a hard time seeing the "responsibility" in it. The wicked are wicked because God made them so, and likewise with the righteous. So in one way it doesn't make sense to say one is more guilty or evil than the other. They can't do otherwise.

 

[drich0150]

Of course, the condition for receiving salvation is belief. And I'm not taking out the context.

30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

"Everyone" is universal. God's atonement is for all. Not all will receive it, because not all will believe. You are missing the forest for the trees, IMO.

The above is where I have identified your learning disablity to be centered around. the word may. you seem to think the word may in your own highlighted verse means God will.... May does not mean will. May means there is a possibility, that God can free them all. So to end this arguement lets look at the english word may and it correct understanding and use.:
may1
mā/
verb

1. 1.
   expressing possibility.

Again the word shows possibility and framed out in the verse it is the possibility of salvation for All. again which is like John 3:16 God could have saved the world but reserved salvation to the elect few who believed in his son.
There is the capacity to save everyone but salvation was reserved for... those who believe.

You claim there are entire races that God hates.

Your turn to define hate. Again you can't seem to accept the real meaning of a word for the meaning you have in your own mind!
God loves the jews they are his people his children.. they are love have been pushed to one side so those in whom God hates... has an opportunity at redemption. Really rad verse 9 it obliterates your idea of an all loving God.
There is absolutly no way to reconcile your god of omni benevolence with:
romans9:
7 And only some of Abraham’s descendants are true children of Abraham. This is what God said to Abraham: “Your true descendants will be those who come through Isaac.” 8 This means that not all of Abraham’s descendants are God’s true children. Abraham’s true children are those who become God’s children because of the promise he made to Abraham. 9 Here is what God said in that promise: “About this time next year I will come back, and Sarah will have a son.”

10 And that is not all. Rebecca also had sons, and they had the same father. He is our father Isaac. 11-12 But before the two sons were born, God told Rebecca, “The older son will serve the younger.” This was before the boys had done anything good or bad. God said this before they were born so that the boy he wanted would be chosen because of God’s own plan. He was chosen because he was the one God wanted to call, not because of anything the boys did. 13 As the Scriptures say, “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.”

14 So what does this mean? That God is not fair? We cannot say that.15 God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I want to show mercy to. I will show pity to anyone I choose.” 16 So God will choose anyone he decides to show mercy to, and his choice does not depend on what people want or try to do. 17 In the Scriptures God says to Pharaoh: “I made you king so that you could do this for me. I wanted to show my power through you. I wanted my name to be announced throughout the world.” 18 So God shows mercy to those he wants to show mercy to and makes stubborn those he wants to make stubborn.

19 So one of you will ask me, “If God controls what we do, why does he blame us for our sins?” 20 Don’t ask that. You are only human and have no right to question God. A clay jar does not question the one who made it. It does not say, “Why did you make me like this?” 21 The one who makes the jar can make anything he wants. He uses the same clay to make different things. He might make one thing for special purposes and another for daily use.

22 It is the same way with what God has done. He wanted to show his anger and to let people see his power. But he patiently endured those he was angry with—people who were ready to be destroyed. 23 He waited with patience so that he could make known the riches of his glory to the people he has chosen to receive his mercy. God has already prepared them to share his glory. 24 We are those people, the ones God chose not only from the Jews but also from those who are not Jews.

Clearly we are not equal we are not 'choosen.' but grace has been extended anyway through what was left over from the Jews.

This is not what is being taught in Romans. I say he shows mercy to all, by offering grace to everyone, but not all receive grace because they love darkness and self and refuse him.

notice how you really don't ever properly quote the bible? verse scraps every time mixed with your own spin.

 

[Loren T.]

19 So one of you will ask me, “If God controls what we do, why does he blame us for our sins?” 20 Don’t ask that. You are only human and have no right to question God. A clay jar does not question the one who made it. It does not say, “Why did you make me like this?” 21 The one who makes the jar can make anything he wants. He uses the same clay to make different things. He might make one thing for special purposes and another for daily use.

Who is the one asking these questions? This is a very important question, because it tells us what their objection is too. I'll give you a hint.
Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
Romans 3 is a parallel to Romans 9. Same basic questions and same answers that are in chapter 10, just not as wordy.

(Also, your translation seems a little funky. I don't know any other translation that uses the word "controls" )

22 It is the same way with what God has done. He wanted to show his anger and to let people see his power. But he patiently endured those he was angry with—people who were ready to be destroyed. 23 He waited with patience so that he could make known the riches of his glory to the people he has chosen to receive his mercy. God has already prepared them to share his glory. 24 We are those people, the ones God chose not only from the Jews but also from those who are not Jews.

What is Paul getting at? He is explaining how God used the rebellion of the Jews to bring the gospel to the whole world. God chose Isaac to be the father of Israel. God chose to use even Pharoah's rebellion for good. The Potter and the clay?

"Jer 18:5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’

God chose some people for special jobs and some for common use. Does this mean God doesn't love all? As you can see from the above verses, it surely does not mean that man's choices for good or evil do not affect what God does. In fact, we see that God himself can be conflicted. He wanted to show his anger but he wanted to show grace more, so he was patient until the chosen time. Now, to understand how WE are chosen you have to get beyond the artificial separation of chapters and quit reading romans 9 as if it isn't connected to romans 10 and 11.

romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

(All means all.)

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Those who have faith are chosen for salvation. This is the point Paul is getting to, by explaining how God brought about the plan of salvation through the Jews rebellion.

 

[holo]

Hello holo, I like your thinking, but I can see that you're suffering a perspective of the scriptures that seems to not so well reflect the attitude that Jesus brought (eg: Matthew 21:43-44).

Could you elaborate on that?

Luke 12:47, John 15:22, James 4:17, Ecclesiastes 7:29.

I don't see how those verses imply that there's an age of accountability though.

Furthermore, I put to you that the doctrine of babies being depraved at birth did not evolve until the gentile early church fathers were grafted in, so it was entirely unthinkable to the writers of the scriptures.

I guess it would be wrong to call them depraved, but a sinner is a sinner because he is born a sinner. Maybe we can talk about more sin or less sin, but the as far as I can tell, the bible doesn't say we become sinners, but that we are born that way. It's in man's very nature to sin. As should be apparent since there is indeed no one righteous.

Sin is, by nature, an offence. So an offence cannot happen unless it has actually happened (James 1:15, James 4:17).

I don't understand what you mean by "cannot happen unless it has actually happened".

This is where your particular Christian background has set you up to reject Christianity by eventually finding that it is unjust. When you sort out your doctrine, to see that children are born blameless and then shaped in the image of the fallen world, when they are eventually lured into sin and death (per James 1:14-16), then they must be born "again" (speaking in spiritual terms, that a person may see the kingdom of God).

I don't think your assumptions about my (former) doctrine. But maybe we're talking past each other. I don't mean that a newborn has guilt per se. I don't see what he could be judged for. But since the newborn is a sinner, there's simply no way he will not go on to commit sin.

It is the one who has the sin that cannot endure the righteous presence (John 3:19-21, 1 Timothy 6:16, Isaiah 59:1-2).

Again I don't see how those verses say that it's the sinner who can't endure the righteous presence.

Oh, I don't know about that.. (eg: Isaiah 6:8).

Well, yes. But maybe a better way to put it would be: I can't offer God anything unless he gives it to me first. I can't even believe in him unless he chooses to give me faith.

.. which denomination has taught you to think like this? (James 1:13, 1 Corinthians 10:13, John 10:10).

Nobody told me, I figured it out all on my own

But how to reconcile those verses with what Paul says in Romans about God making one vessel for glory and one for destruction and so forth? I don't see how anything can ultimately happen apart from God's will. Even Paul quotes the objection that "why have you made me so?" and it's interesting that he doesn't invalidate the objection, but just dismisses it with "who do you think you are to question God?" God did indeed make us all sinners, apparently in order to prove a point (his own righteousness or our inability to save ourselves, as far as I can tell).

Matthew 26:14-16 makes it seem pretty deliberate.

But the bible also says Judas did it in order that the scriptures be fulfilled.

It wasn't that he lacked free will, but love.

Could he have freely chosen to love?

Not true (Exodus 7:14, Exodus 8:32).

There seems to be more verses saying that God hardened his heart than those saying he hardened his own heart:

Exodus 4:21
The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3
But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt

Exodus 9:12
But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses.

Exodus 10:1
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them

Exodus 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

Exodus 10:27
But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he was not willing to let them go.

Exodus 11:10
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Exodus 14:4
And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” So the Israelites did this.

Exodus 14:8
The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly.

Exodus 14:17
I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them.

But since the bible seems to be saying both that he hardened his own heart and that God did it, what do we make of that?