For those who argue for the omnibenevolence of God…

[bling]

Stop trying to change my OP, please. I’ve pointed out twice what it’s about. If you want a different discussion, start your own OP.

You said: "God commanded Jeremiah to not pray for the people. That violates what I’ve seen some argue as God being all-loving."
No! it does not!

You cannot pray people into heaven.

They might have been going through all the rituals correctly, but God looks at the hearts of people and their hearts were not humbly accepting His help as pure charity. God, through Jerimiah, was telling them to surrender to the Babylonians and live, but they refused God's help (Love). God was going to have to severely discipline them to help those who will live through it, so Jerimiah should not be asking God to not severely discipline them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What do you think "respecter of persons" means?

Did God respect Jacob and Esau equally?

 

[Hammster]

What do you think "respecter of persons" means?

In context, that God doesn’t hold the Jews above the Gentiles.

 

[Hammster]

You said: "God commanded Jeremiah to not pray for the people. That violates what I’ve seen some argue as God being all-loving."
No! it does not!

You cannot pray people into heaven.

They might have been going through all the rituals correctly, but God looks at the hearts of people and their hearts were not humbly accepting His help as pure charity. God, through Jerimiah, was telling them to surrender to the Babylonians and live, but they refused God's help (Love). God was going to have to severely discipline them to help those who will live through it, so Jerimiah should not be asking God to not severely discipline them.

Death isn’t discipline. We’ve been over this already.

 

[bling]

Death isn’t discipline. We’ve been over this already.

It is "discipline" for those that are still alive and see what the punishment/discipline is for sever disobedience.
The "Old Law" had many sins, disciplined with death and it would keep many from doing that sin and/or seeking God's forgiveness immediately after committing the sin.

 

[Fervent]

In context, that God doesn’t hold the Jews above the Gentiles.

That is far too limiting for what is said, and an abuse of context rather than a legitimate application. No respecter of persons means God is impartial, showing no favortism.

 

[Fervent]

Did God respect Jacob and Esau equally?

Why do Calvinist's think this is some kind of trump card? God certainly favored Esau, if the history of the Edomites is understood. But Jacob was chosen for the purpose of election, in other words to be the line through which the promised seed would come.

 

[Hammster]

It is "discipline" for those that are still alive and see what the punishment/discipline is for sever disobedience.
The "Old Law" had many sins, disciplined with death and it would keep many from doing that sin and/or seeking God's forgiveness immediately after committing the sin.

It’s not discipline for those who die.

 

[Hammster]

That is far too limiting for what is said, and an abuse of context rather than a legitimate application. No respecter of persons means God is impartial, showing no favortism.

It’s not an abuse. Peter thought the Jews were special until he had his vision and then was sent to Cornelius.

 

[bling]

It’s not discipline for those who die.

Being under a death sentence for stuff you have done, hopefully will cause you to repent, the turning to God (like we see with King David) can save the person, but not always from physical death. In those cases, the death discipline helps everyone.

 

[Fervent]

It’s not an abuse. Peter thought the Jews were special until he had his vision and then was sent to Cornelius.

You're confusing application with meaning, which are not the same thing. Nothing in the context implies such a limitation.

 

[John Mullally]

So the Lord said to me, “Do not pray for the welfare of this people. When they fast, I am not going to listen to their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I am not going to accept them. Rather I am going to make an end of them by the sword, famine and pestilence.”
— Jeremiah 14:11-12

God commanded Jeremiah to not pray for the people. That violates what I’ve seen some argue as God being all-loving.

Why would God be so indignant over Israel’s sin and rebellion? Perhaps they had the legitimate opportunity to have done otherwise and yet refused, then God’s indignation would make much more sense.

In a sort of negative proof of the power of prayer, three times God commanded Jeremiah to stop praying; God wanted no alteration in his plans to punish a rebellious nation. Prayer had, after all, softened God’s resolve before.

 

[Hammster]

Being under a death sentence for stuff you have done, hopefully will cause you to repent, the turning to God (like we see with King David) can save the person, but not always from physical death. In those cases, the death discipline helps everyone.

No, not a death sentence. It was actually death.

 

[Hammster]

You're confusing application with meaning, which are not the same thing. Nothing in the context implies such a limitation.

Everything does. Peter’s issue was that he thought the Jews were special.

 

[Hammster]

Why would God be so indignant over Israel’s sin and rebellion? Perhaps they had the legitimate opportunity to have done otherwise and yet refused, then God’s indignation would make much more sense.

In a sort of negative proof of the power of prayer, three times God commanded Jeremiah to stop praying; God wanted no alteration in his plans to punish a rebellious nation. Prayer had, after all, softened God’s resolve before.

He was indignant because He hates sin.

 

[Fervent]

Everything does. Peter’s issue was that he thought the Jews were special.

Again, you're conflating how the statement was applied with its meaning. Nothing in the context limits the meaning of the phrase to that specific application, and it's unnatural to force it to such limitations since the phrase itself implies a much broader principle being drawn on.

 

[John Mullally]

What do you think "respecter of persons" means?

In context, that God doesn’t hold the Jews above the Gentiles.

FYI: A respecter of persons and one who shows partiality is one who exhibits favoritism and is benevolent only to those "favorites" - thus not omni-benevolent. But wait scripture, says that God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34) and shows no partiality (James 3:17).

Calvinists assert that the ‘elect,’ like all mankind by their view, were once totally depraved, incurably set against God and incapable of believing the gospel, thus they have no more to commend them to God’s grace than the ‘non-elect.’ But due to a "irresistible grace" reserved for his favorite unbelievers (i.e. the elect before they believe), God forcibly changes their hearts so that only they believe and are saved. It is that doctrine that shows God is not omni-benevolent and unjust.

Tragically, Calvinism robs us of what ought to be ‘the greatest story ever told.’It reduces God’s love to a form of favoritism without passion, and it denies man the capacity of responding from his heart, thereby robbing God of the joy of a genuine response from man (as God must use irresistible methods [i.e. puppetry] to trigger man's positive response) and the glory it alone can bring.

 

[Hammster]

Again, you're conflating how the statement was applied with its meaning. Nothing in the context limits the meaning of the phrase to that specific application, and it's unnatural to force it to such limitations since the phrase itself implies a much broader principle being drawn on.

Actually, context is what limits the meaning. It can’t mean what it never meant.

 

[Hammster]

FYI: A respecter of persons and one who shows partiality is one who exhibits favoritism and is benevolent only to those "favorites" - thus not omni-benevolent. But wait scripture, says that God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34) and shows no partiality (James 3:17).

Calvinists assert that the ‘elect,’ like all mankind by their view, were once totally depraved, incurably set against God and incapable of believing the gospel, thus they have no more to commend them to God’s grace than the ‘non-elect.’ But due to a "irresistible grace" reserved for his favorite unbelievers (i.e. the elect before they believe), God forcibly changes their hearts so that only they believe and are saved. It is that doctrine that shows God is not omni-benevolent and unjust.

Tragically, Calvinism robs us of what ought to be ‘the greatest story ever told.’It reduces God’s love to a form of favoritism without passion, and it denies man the capacity of responding from his heart, thereby robbing God of the joy of a genuine response from man (as God must use irresistible methods [i.e. puppetry] to trigger man's positive response) and the glory it alone can bring.

It’s not a discussion on Calvinism. Every argument I’ve made is from scripture. Ask the Canaanites about God’s love.

 

[Fervent]

Actually, context is what limits the meaning. It can’t mean what it never meant.

Context only limits meaning when there's a clear contextual reason for such limitation, it doesn't reduce words and phrases to limitations that are unnatural. The way respecter of persons is used in context is as a broad principle that is apparent about God's nature, which is applied by Peter as the basis for including the gentiles. Nothing about the context implies that is the only application of the principle, nor that the full meaning of the phrase is captured in such an application so the most natural way to understand it both in context and without context is a full statement about God not showing partiality or displaying favortism. In other words, God treats people with equity.