For those who argue for the omnibenevolence of God…

[bbbbbbb]

I believe you mean who loved Jacob and hated Esau, and that is not about God playing favorites but national election. Esau despised his birthright, and so his descendants were excluded from the promise. This is one place where context is of the utmost importance, since it is about national election rather than particular election.

That was my mistake and I apologize for it. Here is the context -

9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

God did not hate Esau after Esau had despised his birthright. God hated Esau long before the twins were even conceived. Esau did not even exist when God determined to hate him.

Perhaps you can redefine hatred as being a genuine act of an omnibenevolent God.

 

[Fervent]

That was my mistake and I apologize for it. Here is the context -

9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

God did not hate Esau after Esau had despised his birthright. God hated Esau long before the twins were even conceived. Esau did not even exist when God determined to hate him.

Perhaps you can redefine hatred as being a genuine act of an omnibenevolent God.

This is one of the places where understanding the context becomes of the utmost importance, because what is referred to is Malachi where Esau is not the individual Esau but the nation of Edom, and the hatred mentioned is not malicious intent but the reality that Jacob had been chosen to be the one through whom the promise of a messiah flowed through. So splitting hairs about when and how God hated Esau misses the point entirely, as it is not the person of Esau who is intended but a national election through the person of Jacob. Despite Calvinists twisting this verse into a matter of personal election, it has as its view a broader context and cannot be simply understood to be God intentionally favoring one arbitrarily over another.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is one of the places where understanding the context becomes of the utmost importance, because what is referred to is Malachi where Esau is not the individual Esau but the nation of Edom, and the hatred mentioned is not malicious intent but the reality that Jacob had been chosen to be the one through whom the promise of a messiah flowed through. So splitting hairs about when and how God hated Esau misses the point entirely, as it is not the person of Esau who is intended but a national election through the person of Jacob. Despite Calvinists twisting this verse into a matter of personal election, it has as its view a broader context and cannot be simply understood to be God intentionally favoring one arbitrarily over another.

Nevertheless, whether or not God hated one individual in particular or an entire nation of individuals is not germane to this discussion. Does an omnibenevolent God determine to love one nation and hate another?

 

[Fervent]

Nevertheless, whether or not God hated one individual in particular or an entire nation of individuals is not germane to this discussion. Does an omnibenevolent God determine to love one nation and hate another?

It is entirely germane to the question, which is whether God plays favorites. God saves individuals regardless of their national heritage, but that doesn't preclude Him from choosing one nation for salvific purposes to reveal His plan through. God chose Israel to reveal Jesus through, but not every Israelite is saved. God chose not to reveal Himself through other nations, but that does not preclude Him from saving individuals from that nation. In either case, God is not one who plays favorites.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is entirely germane to the question, which is whether God plays favorites. God saves individuals regardless of their national heritage, but that doesn't preclude Him from choosing one nation for salvific purposes to reveal His plan through. God chose Israel to reveal Jesus through, but not every Israelite is saved. God chose not to reveal Himself through other nations, but that does not preclude Him from saving individuals from that nation. In either case, God is not one who plays favorites.

Does an omnibenevolent God bless one set of individuals and curse another, or are all of His blessings and curses equally distributed?

 

[Fervent]

Does an omnibenevolent God bless one set of individuals and curse another, or are all of His blessings and curses equally distributed?

Communal election doesn't involve blessing one set to the exclusion of another set, instead moving through one set to reveal an individual to bless all sets. In the end, all people are blessed through Abraham not one particular group.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Communal election doesn't involve blessing one set to the exclusion of another set, instead moving through one set to reveal an individual to bless all sets. In the end, all people are blessed through Abraham not one particular group.

So, do you believe that God never blessed Israel and that Israel (both the individual and the nation) were treated by God just like every other person and nation on earth?

 

[Fervent]

So, do you believe that God never blessed Israel and that Israel (both the individual and the nation) were treated by God just like every other person and nation on earth?

Not quite, but that Israel's blessing was for no other purpose than to reveal Jesus, through whom all nations and people would be blessed. Though, of course, none were blessed simply because they belonged to the nation of Israel but instead the faithful remnant received a blessing.

 

[Hammster]

Regardless of the context, the verses are explicit that there is no favortism with God. So why do you argue that God plays favorites?

Regardless of what their intent is, it says what you want them to say?

Mkay.

 

[Hammster]

He that is forgiven much will Love much (Luke 7) Forgiving being Loving on God's part, us accepting that Love (Forgiving) on our part results in us Loving God. This is true. but that
was not what I was talking about. I did not address "God receiving our Love", but about our receiving or rejecting God's Love. God still Loves those who reject His Love, but the transaction of Love (like the transaction of forgiveness Heb. 18) does not take place.

Again, the thread is about our receiving or rejecting God’s love. It’s about His love towards us.

 

[bling]

That was my mistake and I apologize for it. Here is the context -

9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

God did not hate Esau after Esau had despised his birthright. God hated Esau long before the twins were even conceived. Esau did not even exist when God determined to hate him.

Perhaps you can redefine hatred as being a genuine act of an omnibenevolent God.

B’s I can understand your confusion, I agree with lots of your logic, and I am not in agreement with Fervent.

Yes, we might have to look at how Deity defines “hate” which is very different from most people’s definition. Deity tells us to “hate” our own family and at the same time, Deity tells us to Love our family, so by Deity’s definition of “hate”, we can “Love” and “hate” the same person at the same time.

Even with an English human definition of “hate”, it is not the opposite of Love. Total unconcern for a person is the opposite of “Loving them", while hating someone means you still have concern for them.

Even before Esau was born his personality was different from Jocob and God could see he could not work with the first-born Esau, but could work with Jacob, even though both were problematic. God would have hated the fact, He could not work with Esau, but that does not mean Esau was hell bound and looking at how Esau ended up forgiving, befriending and Living next to Jacob, gives us reason to think Esau was probably saved in the end. Esau was certainly much better than Jacob to begin with and Isaac liked him.

 

[bling]

Again, the thread is about our receiving or rejecting God’s love. It’s about His love towards us.

The OP, question is about an "omnibenevolence of God", yet bad stuff happening to some people. The problem is not with God Loving everyone, but with everyone not humbly accepting that Love as pure undeserved charity. Bad things happen to the person who rejects God's Love, so they do not receive God's Love.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not quite, but that Israel's blessing was for no other purpose than to reveal Jesus, through whom all nations and people would be blessed. Though, of course, none were blessed simply because they belonged to the nation of Israel but instead the faithful remnant received a blessing.

I think I have it. God destroyed Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea (not to mention the other plagues of Egypt) as an extreme act of benevolence toward Egypt, not to mention Pharaoh. All things considered, I would probably not be inter

B’s I can understand your confusion, I agree with lots of your logic, and I am not in agreement with Fervent.

Yes, we might have to look at how Deity defines “hate” which is very different from most people’s definition. Deity tells us to “hate” our own family and at the same time, Deity tells us to Love our family, so by Deity’s definition of “hate”, we can “Love” and “hate” the same person at the same time.

Even with an English human definition of “hate”, it is not the opposite of Love. Total unconcern for a person is the opposite of “Loving them", while hating someone means you still have concern for them.

Even before Esau was born his personality was different from Jocob and God could see he could not work with the first-born Esau, but could work with Jacob, even though both were problematic. God would have hated the fact, He could not work with Esau, but that does not mean Esau was hell bound and looking at how Esau ended up forgiving, befriending and Living next to Jacob, gives us reason to think Esau was probably saved in the end. Esau was certainly much better than Jacob to begin with and Isaac liked him.

Any way you might wish to define hate and love, I think we can agree that they are not all the same thing and, in most instances, polar opposites. Thus, if one hates something, but loves something else, a strong preference is expressed which, typically, results in actions reflecting those positions. If one is omnibenevolent one simply cannot hate and love at the same time. For example, God hates sin and loves righteousness. As a result God treats (unrepentant) sinners very differently than righteous folks. God is far from omnibenevolent to them.

The text concerning Esau is quite explicit that God hated him before he was born. It is one thing to foreknow an individual and act on that foreknowledge when the individual performs the foreknown activities. It is quite another thing to act on foreknowledge (i.e. predestine) of an individual and his actions before anything happened. We have a modern ethical equivalent. It is now medically possible to determine the physical characteristics of an unborn child such that if a fetus will be born with defects which will result in a quick and nasty death, both for the mother and the baby, it is not unreasonable to predestine the fate of that baby in order to save the live of the mother. The doctor is far from omnibenevolent. He destroys the life of a deformed baby in order to enact benevolence in saving the life of the mother.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The OP, question is about an "omnibenevolence of God", yet bad stuff happening to some people. The problem is not with God Loving everyone, but with everyone not humbly accepting that Love as pure undeserved charity. Bad things happen to the person who rejects God's Love, so they do not receive God's Love.

Bad things happen to everyone, regardless of their response to God's benevolence. Job is a prime example. God was assuredly not benevolent toward Job when He allowed Satan to test Job. God was benevolent toward Job's comforters in that He did not allow Satan to test them. The reality is that an omnibenevolent God would be utterly impotent in controlling unfortunate things happening in this world unless He directed these events, like rain falling, to happen to all people equally.

 

[Fervent]

Regardless of what their intent is, it says what you want them to say?

Mkay.

Not so much, simply that there's no context in which they mean God plays favorites.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not so much, simply that there's no context in which they mean God plays favorites.

So, how do you explain Job? Why did God meddle with him?

 

[Hammster]

The OP, question is about an "omnibenevolence of God", yet bad stuff happening to some people. The problem is not with God Loving everyone, but with everyone not humbly accepting that Love as pure undeserved charity. Bad things happen to the person who rejects God's Love, so they do not receive God's Love.

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.

 

[Hammster]

Not so much, simply that there's no context in which they mean God plays favorites.

None of those references mean that God treats everyone equally.

 

[bling]

Any way you might wish to define hate and love, I think we can agree that they are not all the same thing and, in most instances, polar opposites. Thus, if one hates something, but loves something else, a strong preference is expressed which, typically, results in actions reflecting those positions. If one is omnibenevolent one simply cannot hate and love at the same time. For example, God hates sin and loves righteousness. As a result God treats (unrepentant) sinners very differently than righteous folks. God is far from omnibenevolent to them.

What is your definition for “hate” as used by deity in Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Are we not to have an extremely strong “Love” for our father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters?

Why can’t God do what Jesus is asking us to do, Agape Love and hate the same person?

It is not God’s “Love” which causes God to treat unrepentant sinners differently than Christians, but the unrepentant sinner refusing God’s Love.

The text concerning Esau is quite explicit that God hated him before he was born. It is one thing to foreknow an individual and act on that foreknowledge when the individual performs the foreknown activities. It is quite another thing to act on foreknowledge (i.e. predestine) of an individual and his actions before anything happened. We have a modern ethical equivalent. It is now medically possible to determine the physical characteristics of an unborn child such that if a fetus will be born with defects which will result in a quick and nasty death, both for the mother and the baby, it is not unreasonable to predestine the fate of that baby in order to save the live of the mother. The doctor is far from omnibenevolent. He destroys the life of a deformed baby in order to enact benevolence in saving the life of the mother.

I have known many a child from the first year, with traits that will help or hinder them, so we can image God would know from the arrangement of their brain prior to birth, who will be easy and hard for Him to work with. Again, God can Love and hate Esau at the same time (hating the fact Esau cannot be worked with), but not meaning Esau is hell bound.

 

[Fervent]

None of those references mean that God treats everyone equally.

What do you think "respecter of persons" means?