Does God love all or some?

[Mark Quayle]

Please explain to us why incinerating someone is NOT cruel.

"Somehow" I see it as cruel. Help me to understand that it's really not all that bad. Thanks.

btw 'not all that bad' is a silly fiction. It is not bad at all, i.e. not unjust at all. Not even a little bit.

 

[Saint Steven]

God is not us. Really?? You think his commandments for us apply to him? We are not his fellow entities. He has no peers, no neighbors. Even his enemies are no threat to him.

But he is just.

So, an eternal punishment fits a temporal crime? Is that justice?

 

[Saint Steven]

Again, what do you do to the scriptures that describe the situation in the Lake of Fire?

What do you do to the scriptures that say Jesus is the savior of ALL people? Saw cuts both ways. I accept the conflict. Do you?

 

[Saint Steven]

But to your question, the soul that we recognized as human will hardly resemble what we thought we knew. All that is virtuous about them, their 'humanity' as we refer to it gone, all graces removed, all restraints disengaged, they are become altogether without God, nothing good remaining. They are the souls that deserve all they receive there. Wailing wraiths, horrors, utter corruption. Where is the cruelty in giving them according to their works, their sin?

And this is all by design, correct? Does the designer take any responsibility here? Or should we blame it on the victims?

 

[Mark Quayle]

And this is all by design, correct? Does the designer take any responsibility here? Or should we blame it on the victims?

Responsibility and blame are two different things. God is the original cause of all subsequent effects, but he uses means to accomplish his plans. They too are causes.

But punishment is for the crime. Payment is for the debt. Don't confuse sin with God --Sin is our direct act. You just seem to have no idea how bad sin is, nor how much higher God is than we are or our understanding is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you do to the scriptures that say Jesus is the savior of ALL people? Saw cuts both ways. I accept the conflict. Do you?

I've been telling you. Do you not read the posts? Or do you just gut react when read something you don't like?

Such verses, like any other verse or passage, must be read in context, both immediate and the whole of Scripture. It also must be understood in many other things --the mindset of the writer, the mindset of the readers, the current cultures, the meaning in the original languages, the use of common language (rhetoric) and literature, the type of literature being used such as poetry, history, etc and on many other considerations. Exegesis.

Bear in mind also that the word "all" is almost always limited to some category. In common language, we might say, "is everyone in the car?" --obviously we don't mean that absolutely all creatures that ever lived and ever will live are in the car --not even that all humanity is!

Such verses are usually referencing one or more of the following:

1. "to all", "for all", "all are", "whole world" and such are saying that there are none who escape the principle --i.e. it applies to all. Thus if there is salvation for anyone, it is through Christ, Christ's atonement, Christ's work, etc. Thus, for example, all of mankind is under the Adam's curse of sin, and so all of mankind must go through Christ in order to be relieved of guilt and penalty and slavery to sin.

2. "to all", "for all", "all are", "whole world" and such are saying that people of all kinds, all peoples, all nations, and particularly that both Jew and Gentile, are included in God's particular grace --not absolutely all individuals.

3. Sometimes the context shows the verse is referencing all of a particular category of people, such as the Elect. Thus, for example, God is not willing that any should perish.

4. Sometimes a verse is completely taken wrong by sentimentality or mistranslation. Thus, for example, what would seem an appeal of God's love for the elect, is changed to God's appeal to some random pool of possibles.

5. There are admitted 2 certain senses in which he died for absolutely all of humanity. A. that is, like #1 above, that the principle is in place, that should any attend to it, it would in fact apply to them. As it works out, however, none will except those elect to whom he gives mercy, changing their will. B. he is redeeming the corrupted universe back to purity, putting death to death, through the death of Christ. This does not at all indicate that anyone's sins are atoned for by Christ, who end up paying for their own.

6. It is also admitted that were it possible to complete the same construction he had in mind, that is, the Church, the Dwelling Place of God, the Bride of Christ, without the fall of Lucifer and Adam and subsequent effects, he would have done so, but it is not possible. The People of God thus KNOW the love of God, the immense generosity of God to totally unworthy creatures.

7. It is also relevant that God's purpose in creating a people for himself was not to create a people to burn in the Lake of Fire, but that they were a necessary part of that particular creation --God's Redeemed

8. There are many more explanations that apply to single or more verses, that I don't have time nor inclination to deal with here. These are just some that come immediately to mind. None of them allow for relief of the guilt or debt of sin for those who end up paying their own in the Lake of Fire. Yet the numerous references to condemnation and such go unanswered for the universalist, who wants to categorize the Fire as something purifying at worst.

 

[Saint Steven]

You just seem to have no idea how bad sin is, nor how much higher God is than we are or our understanding is.

You seem to forget that we are created in God's image, in his likeness. The terrible things you claim about humanity are a direct reflection on God.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yet the numerous references to condemnation and such go unanswered for the universalist, who wants to categorize the Fire as something purifying at worst.

Plain and simple. The Bible is biased toward Damnationism. As are all the fine doctrines and apologetics you parrot. These doctrines were the driving force behind the biased translation work. All you have written is just the party line as far as I am concerned.

 

[Saint Steven]

3. Sometimes the context shows the verse is referencing all of a particular category of people, such as the Elect. Thus, for example, God is not willing that any should perish.

And the meaning is colored by the lenses that you read through.

The Damnationist and Annihilationist conclude that God doesn't WANT any to perish, but alas, they will. Thus assuming that God's will is frustrated by humankind.

The UR reader concludes that God's will is not frustrated by humankind. And confirms the observation in verse 15 of the same chapter. Which reads, "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation..." (rather than assume the Lord’s patience means judgment)

2 Peter 3:9 NIV
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:15 NIV
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is love. No exceptions. Jesus died for all because Jesus loved them all.

If God's love for all is intrinsic, of himself, not of the worth of the objects of his love, his use of them and his choices among them, is also motivated by himself --not by anything they did.

It is not in our bailiwick to jump logical steps to suddenly conclude, "But that is not love!"

 

[Mark Quayle]

And the meaning is colored by the lenses that you read through.

The Damnationist and Annihilationist conclude that God doesn't WANT any to perish, but alas, they will. Thus assuming that God's will is frustrated by humankind.

The UR reader concludes that God's will is not frustrated by humankind. And confirms the observation in verse 15 of the same chapter. Which reads, "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation..." (rather than assume the Lord’s patience means judgment)

2 Peter 3:9 NIV
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:15 NIV
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

You perhaps haven't heard that some of us, like me, arrived at Reformed Theology before even knowing it was called that. I got there by cold hard experience and frustrated pursuit of what I thought I should do and be, by intense long study of Scripture. I'm not going to say my understanding is without error, but I will say I don't see Scripture how I do because of the lens of Reformed Theology.

It is not me who concludes that God's will is frustrated in any way. In your argument, you say that the damnationists, "conclude that God doesn't WANT any to perish, but alas, they will." You suppose my notion of God is not pleased with the results of his own plan? My God is not defeated in any way! I say the damnation of the wicked, and the pain and suffering common to this temporal life, are not THE plan, but are planned. That is the closest I will come to resembling your strawman. THE plan of God is to make a particular people for himself, to be one with him and enjoy him forever as he is. That plan necessarily requires EVERYTHING else to come to pass that he has planned --i.e. everything else that has happened or will happen. Nothing will come to pass that he has not planned and caused to come to pass.

I honestly cannot see how anyone can logically come to the conclusion that ANYTHING CAN come to pass but as an effect of First Cause (God himself). There is no random, no chance, no second first causes, no absolute autonomy of the creature.

UR might feel sweet to you, but it is wholly dependent on YOUR use of the term 'love' --on your definition-- not on God's.

You exalt the Lost, whose will is corrupt and wholly at enmity with Christ, to be equal with the Regenerated, (and, agreed, so they once were), but the Redeemed are made new by God himself in them, (again, agreed, this is not in and of themselves), raised to a position this temporal life does not allow. You will not find in Scripture that those God has not elected are given this status at all. You WILL find that they are exposed for what they are, as in fact apart from Christ. It will not be pretty.

You see Scripture through your lens of supposed love. You don't find love by exegesis of Scripture; your eisegesis requires Scripture to fit your notion of love.

 

[Hmm]

I honestly cannot see how anyone can logically come to the conclusion that ANYTHING CAN come to pass but as an effect of First Cause (God himself). There is no random, no chance, no second first causes, no absolute autonomy of the creature.

But would you accept that your belief that there is no such thing as human free-will or chance is simply that: a belief, and one that you hold because, as you say, you think it is logical?

 

[public hermit]

see Scripture through your lens of supposed love. You don't find love by exegesis of Scripture; your eisegesis requires Scripture to fit your notion of love

I don't see how this critique can't work both ways. To say, "My interpretation is exegesis, and yours is eisegesis" is a non-starter and hardly an argument in favor of one's own position. It amounts to saying, "I'm right and you're wrong."

 

[Saint Steven]

It is not me who concludes that God's will is frustrated in any way. In your argument, you say that the damnationists, "conclude that God doesn't WANT any to perish, but alas, they will." You suppose my notion of God is not pleased with the results of his own plan? My God is not defeated in any way! I say the damnation of the wicked, and the pain and suffering common to this temporal life, are not THE plan, but are planned. That is the closest I will come to resembling your strawman. THE plan of God is to make a particular people for himself, to be one with him and enjoy him forever as he is. That plan necessarily requires EVERYTHING else to come to pass that he has planned --i.e. everything else that has happened or will happen. Nothing will come to pass that he has not planned and caused to come to pass.

It appears that this statement is contradictory.
As if there is an accommodation (which you claim is planned, but not THE plan - Say what?) made to the frustration of God's will that none should perish.

If the plan of God is to "make a particular people for himself", then that includes the plan to dispose of the rest. Which would be a clear violation of his will. AND a part of his plan.

So, simply stated, you see God's plan as to pick a few "particular people for himself" and then incinerate the rest. (in opposition to his will) Right?

With the caveat that the chosen elect were selected by an act of their own will. Thus putting the incineration blame on the victims. (even though God created the incinerator) Most of which never had an opportunity to choose.

Am I understanding you correctly now?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But would you accept that your belief that there is no such thing as human free-will or chance is simply that: a belief, and one that you hold because, as you say, you think it is logical?

You mean, can I be wrong? Of course, and so can anyone else. I find one thing more reasonable that another. One thing makes logical sense and fits Scripture to the best I have been able to see --in fact, it is Scripture and hard experience that brought my opinion there. The other does not, and did not.

"Simply a belief", you say, as if that is all it is, and as only a belief it is therefore not the truth? Then I hope you can say the same about anyone's construction of the facts.

(A thing a person may say can be wholly the truth, though the person saying it does not fully apprehend all the meaning contained in what he said. We can say, "God is Love", as even the Universalist does, and have no notion where that fact should take us, having only our own notion of Love, but it is still true, nonetheless. Also, we all arrive at conclusions, some of which are indeed true. But the Word of God will judge the validity of not only what we say, but of what we meant.)

Regardless, when something opposing my notion of God, and opposing good sense, is presented, it is difficult for me to consider it equally valid as my own thoughts on the matter. And when that something appears to me as an insult to God Almighty, I find it difficult to keep quiet about it. It's probably a good thing that of so many presentations, it can be said (I'm thinking it was John Owen who first said it) "No they aren't right! They aren't even wrong!!!" Many of us would have nothing else to do all day but to answer the incongruous, un-cogent, silly, ludicrous and irrelevant.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see how this critique can't work both ways. To say, "My interpretation is exegesis, and yours is eisegesis" is a non-starter and hardly an argument in favor of one's own position. It amounts to saying, "I'm right and you're wrong."

I suppose it can go there. The question of such a claim is always, "is that true?". Anyhow, there is no reason to think any two opinions are equally valid or equally invalid simply because everybody has an opinion.

 

[Hmm]

You mean, can I be wrong? Of course, and so can anyone else. I find one thing more reasonable that...

"Simply a belief", you say, as if that is all it is, and as only a belief it is therefore not the truth? Then I hope you can say the same about anyone's construction of the facts

I think there is objective truth but we can really only approach it indirectly via a belief or a theory. As you say, we believe what we find to be most reasonable and plausible explanation of the world and our individual experiences. But there's no knockdown explanation that is so compelling that it will convince everyone.

I find the idea of predetermined damnation irrational and immoral as well as unbilical but obviously some people think it's true. I don't know who's right and who's wrong - how can I? - but I do know that if it is true I'd rather be one of the unregenerate than the elect because I wouldn't worship a god like that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It appears that this statement is contradictory.
As if there is an accommodation (which you claim is planned, but not THE plan - Say what?) made to the frustration of God's will that none should perish.

I should have thought it was obvious what I meant. Any plan made involves what it take to accomplish the main purpose of the plan. God didn't create in order to punish. He created in order to glorify himself. This means some will, but some will not, be saved. Damnation of some was not his primary purpose.

If the plan of God is to "make a particular people for himself", then that includes the plan to dispose of the rest. Which would be a clear violation of his will. AND a part of his plan.

So, simply stated, you see God's plan as to pick a few "particular people for himself" and then incinerate the rest. (in opposition to his will) Right?

Wrong. "Incinerate the rest" is an insulting way to refer to justice and power. I think it is approaching time for you to put away the disparagement, sarcasm and hyperbole.

How do you get it that I think anything happens in opposition to God's will (i.e. his overall plan)?

 

[Saint Steven]

UR might feel sweet to you, but it is wholly dependent on YOUR use of the term 'love' --on your definition-- not on God's.

Doesn't our God-given conscience tell us that it is wrong to incinerate someone?

That no amount of reasoning can make that right? (even claiming that those being incinerated are really human, but rather "wraiths", as you put it)

Only by brainwashing in our religious training did we come to accept that as a rational conclusion. It should be, and is, revolting to a thinking mind.

And as a matter of fact, many have rejected Christianity on this understandable basis.

 

[Saint Steven]

I should have thought it was obvious what I meant. Any plan made involves what it take to accomplish the main purpose of the plan. God didn't create in order to punish. He created in order to glorify himself. This means some will, but some will not, be saved. Damnation of some was not his primary purpose.

That's a terrific explanation of a flawed plan. God can't do any better than that to accomplish the said purpose? (to glorify himself) Which would be ungodly if we did it. (humble yourself) Thus the claim itself is suspect. IMHO

Is God so concerned with those that will not by an act of their own free-will glorify him, that he needs to incinerate them? Why?

And if that was the plan, why announce it? Now he will have to sort through all the fear-based decisions and discount them as not genuine. Those who prayed the prayer to receive Christ based on the understanding that if they didn't, they were facing eternal conscious torment. Is that really a decision to glorify, or more like self-preservation in the face of the ultimatum of a cosmic tyrant?

Hard to decide who is worse. The deserving wraith, as you put it, who pretended to glorify God for the sole purpose of self-preservation, or the cosmic tyrant that created the extortion demand in the first place. You tell me.

Why is none of this obvious to a rational being?