God does not love everyone and the Bible says so (Change My Mind)

[razzelflabben]

I'm not refusing any such thing. You seem to think that doing it to benefit Israel somehow precludes God doing it to His own glory - a position you have yet to show is reasonable in any way.

well that isn't totally true but whatever....let's try this a different way...what do you think "glory" means? Please be specific and feel free to use the Lexicon since I am more than willing to do so....

Look again that the commentaries you YOU LINKED TO:
Ellicot - "assert His own righteousness"
Benson - "that I may be praised"
Poole's - "vindication of my name AND GLORY"
Gill's - "because of His GLORY"

what did I tell you that meant in context...I did not deny that He said He would benefit...what I said is that the benefit would be for Israel to know that He was their rightful Daddy and as such needed to listen to Him not the false gods...which is consistent with what all the commentaries say especially if you leave the context in tact...

It's right there in black & white from reputable commentaries. You have no basis whatsoever to deny that God is doing it for His glory.

I absolutely do but let's back up and see it again cause apparently you are confusing yourself as to what is being said by the text as well as by me.

Show me ONE source that states what God did in Isaiah 48:9 means God did NOT do it for His own glory. I don't mean a commentary that doesn't mention it either way - I want a source that EXPLICITLY PRECLUDES God having done it for His own Glory. Just one.

see above...I have provided many and it all starts with reading for comprehension as per elementary level reading skills.

 

[Hammster]

Do you know that Scripture says that Jesus died for sinners?
God hates sin, but if he hated, and was wrathful, towards us, he wouldn't have sent his spotless and beloved son to die for us.

What did His death accomplish? Did it save us, or just make us savable?

 

[Hammster]

It's not reading between the lines, it's what he said elsewhere in Scripture; "whoever comes", "whoever believes", "whoever eats" and so on. John said "to those who received him, he gave the right to become children of God", John 1:12. Paul says that if we have the Spirit he confirms that we are children of God; Luke says that God is eager to give the Holy Spirit to anyone who asks him.
The whole Gospel is that we are sinners, we hear and accept that we cannot save ourselves and that Jesus died for our sins, we turn to/cry out to him, repent and ask forgiveness, THEN we are born again and receive eternal life.
The NT uses different analogies to show that he belong to God; his children, his sheep, branches on the vine etc. Jesus never said that God had pre appointed that people would be his sheep, and that because of that, they would automatically believe, while anyone who had not been selected as his sheep would not be able to believe.
He urged the pharisees to believe - believe what I say, if not, believe because of the miracles that I do. Some did; most didn't.

Here’s the problem with posts like this. It picks and chooses a verse here, a part of a verse there, a generalized story, etc. We aren’t able to actually study the references to see what’s really said. Every time I ask for specific scripture to study, we might get a verse, but once we start to delve into it, then I get a “well, what about this verse?” distraction.

So if you want to pick a verse or passage and stick with it for a bit, that’s great. But if all we will get is these rambling generic posts that generate “likes”, then there’s no need.

 

[corinth77777]

So where do I stand after reading this....at this point.
God chooses a group that's allowed to accept His son. Those are the called maybe...but the ones elected are the ones that continue in His word. I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere...but I'm sure some nice teacher in here will explain more clearer.

 

[Hammster]

So where do I stand after reading this....at this point.
God chooses a group that's allowed to accept His son. Those are the called maybe...but the ones elected are the ones that continue in His word. I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere...but I'm sure some nice teacher in here will explain more clearer.

The way I look at it is this. Everyone is a wretched sinner. Everyone deserves eternity in hell for rebellion against the King. But He decided to show mercy upon some. It’s His right as King to do so. He doesn’t need to explain why He chooses, or how He chooses. But nobody is treated unfairly. And those He chose should be humble because we should understand that there’s nothing good in us that deserves being chosen.

 

[HypnoToad]

it all starts with reading for comprehension as per elementary level reading skills.

Well there's a boatload of irony.

Really, I'm done with this. You have a nice day.

 

[Strong in Him]

Here’s the problem with posts like this. It picks and chooses a verse here, a part of a verse there, a generalized story, etc. We aren’t able to actually study the references to see what’s really said. Every time I ask for specific scripture to study, we might get a verse, but once we start to delve into it, then I get a “well, what about this verse?” distraction.

So if you want to pick a verse or passage and stick with it for a bit, that’s great. But if all we will get is these rambling generic posts that generate “likes”, then there’s no need.

I'm sorry you see them as "rambling generic posts"; I've been trying to explain that the position I am putting forward is taught in a number of places in Scripture.
If something is taught in several places in Scripture and then there is one verse which seems to be saying something different, we need to look at that one verse to find out what it really IS saying - because Scripture does not contradict itself.

So, for example, there are a number of verses which talk about God showing his love to all and to the world. Yes, it's true that in some places "world" might mean their world as they knew it, a certain local area. But in other places, God says ALL - ALL people were created by God (unless you do believe that that only applied to Adam and Eve and the rest of us evolved), and ALL people are sinners.
So who does God show his love to; all or some? It depends what you believe about the character of God. God is love. Paul doesn't say that love is selective and shows itself/is available only to certain people. Jesus says that God is a loving, perfect heavenly Father; is it loving to say "I made you but I have chosen not to love you"? I can't think of anyone who would get a father of the year award for that attitude - more likely they'd be reported for child abuse/neglect. So why attribute that to God, who is our loving, perfect heavenly Father?

 

[Hammster]

I'm sorry you see them as "rambling generic posts"; I've been trying to explain that the position I am putting forward is taught in a number of places in Scripture.
If something is taught in several places in Scripture and then there is one verse which seems to be saying something different, we need to look at that one verse to find out what it really IS saying - because Scripture does not contradict itself.

So, for example, there are a number of verses which talk about God showing his love to all and to the world. Yes, it's true that in some places "world" might mean their world as they knew it, a certain local area. But in other places, God says ALL - ALL people were created by God (unless you do believe that that only applied to Adam and Eve and the rest of us evolved), and ALL people are sinners.
So who does God show his love to; all or some? It depends what you believe about the character of God. God is love. Paul doesn't say that love is selective and shows itself/is available only to certain people. Jesus says that God is a loving, perfect heavenly Father; is it loving to say "I made you but I have chosen not to love you"? I can't think of anyone who would get a father of the year award for that attitude - more likely they'd be reported for child abuse/neglect. So why attribute that to God, who is our loving, perfect heavenly Father?

The problem is that it’s hard to determine if it’s taught in a number of places because everything you post is posted without context.

If it’s taught, it should be easy to discuss a verse or two, look at the context, and see if it’s true.

 

[Strong in Him]

The way I look at it is this. Everyone is a wretched sinner. Everyone deserves eternity in hell for rebellion against the King. But He decided to show mercy upon some. It’s His right as King to do so.

Except that Scripture makes it very clear that God is love, 1 John 4:8. John says that whoever does not love is not from God and does not know God. God IS love, and therefore cannot NOT love - that is who he is. Absence of love = absence of God.
Jesus also said, in Matthew 5:44-48, that we are to love our enemies; if we just love those who love us, what good is that and what is anyone doing that is better than the pagans? THEN he says that we should be perfect as God is perfect.
No one who believes that God loves only a few, has yet commented on these verses.

Scripture does not say that love is selective, or that God really loves everyone but shows that love to a few by sending them to hell. People might go to hell, but because of the choices they made in life to reject God, NOT because God did not love them enough to keep them out of it.

He doesn’t need to explain why He chooses, or how He chooses.

God doesn't need to explain himself to us; agreed.
But creating all people, knowing that all are sinners and cannot be reconciled to him, but choosing only a few to receive his mercy and the gift of his only Son dying on the cross, is not something that I see in Scripture. Nor do I think that is is demonstration of love. John says that God demonstrated his love on the cross; by sending Christ to die for us. Paul says that Christ died for sinners. How would saying "I died for this sinner but not this one" be evidence of love, or mercy?

But nobody is treated unfairly.

If you're saying that some people get sent to hell because God decided not to love them, or sent them there for rejecting him when he never chose them to be saved in the first place - that is unfair.
How can someone be judged for rejecting God if it was never God's will that they be chosen or saved?

And those He chose should be humble because we should understand that there’s nothing good in us that deserves being chosen.

There is nothing good in ANY person that they deserve to be chosen by God - ALL have sinned, NO ONE is righteous etc. We all owe our lives, health, salvation and "every spiritual blessing", to God. We can do nothing of our own, it is all due to him. God shows mercy to those who don't deserve it - which is everyone. NONE of us deserve his mercy, grace and love; we can all receive it.

 

[Hammster]

Except that Scripture makes it very clear that God is love, 1 John 4:8. John says that whoever does not love is not from God and does not know God. God IS love, and therefore cannot NOT love - that is who he is. Absence of love = absence of God.
Jesus also said, in Matthew 5:44-48, that we are to love our enemies; if we just love those who love us, what good is that and what is anyone doing that is better than the pagans? THEN he says that we should be perfect as God is perfect.
No one who believes that God loves only a few, has yet commented on these verses.

Scripture does not say that love is selective, or that God really loves everyone but shows that love to a few by sending them to hell. People might go to hell, but because of the choices they made in life to reject God, NOT because God did not love them enough to keep them out of it.



God doesn't need to explain himself to us; agreed.
But creating all people, knowing that all are sinners and cannot be reconciled to him, but choosing only a few to receive his mercy and the gift of his only Son dying on the cross, is not something that I see in Scripture. Nor do I think that is is demonstration of love. John says that God demonstrated his love on the cross; by sending Christ to die for us. Paul says that Christ died for sinners. How would saying "I died for this sinner but not this one" be evidence of love, or mercy?



If you're saying that some people get sent to hell because God decided not to love them, or sent them there for rejecting him when he never chose them to be saved in the first place - that is unfair.
How can someone be judged for rejecting God if it was never God's will that they be chosen or saved?



There is nothing good in ANY person that they deserve to be chosen by God - ALL have sinned, NO ONE is righteous etc. We all owe our lives, health, salvation and "every spiritual blessing", to God. We can do nothing of our own, it is all due to him. God shows mercy to those who don't deserve it - which is everyone. NONE of us deserve his mercy, grace and love; we can all receive it.

The fact that there’s hell proves that God doesn’t show mercy to everyone. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. Mercy is driven by love. So if God loves everyone without condition, there’d be no need for hell.

 

[Grip Docility]

What did His death accomplish? Did it save us, or just make us savable?

We all are ressurected, per scripture. That’s a start. Hebrews 2:14 shows that His death broke the power of the one that wields death.

The Body of Christ that passes is with Him, now.

There is a raising of the dead, in Revelation.

If Thessalonians says we come back with Him and are caught up with Him, why is He “Judging” the dead instead of condemning the dead?

How does He have the ability to work with the unrepentant, one last time?

1 John 2:2. Not just our sins, but the sins of the Kosmou (root of Kosmo [Kosmos] (Universe).

Either we have to scrub that we are with Jesus upon death, or you acknowledge He propitiated for all.

It’s that simple.

Sophism that attempts to change the word world is again exposed by simple evaluation.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Expanding from this very popular thread, I'd like to provide contrary evidence to the majority vote with the following scripture that we all seem to hold as a universal truth that is contextual accurate when talking about what love is and isn't:

1 Cor. 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So if this is our understood standard where God is Love, then how can we reject Universalism in that people go to hell, but are still loved by God.

I think we all can agree on the following:

>People go to hell because of their sin
>People are not forgiven of their sin due to disbelief and lack of real saving faith

If the above is universally true, then it stands to reason that God is keeping a record of their wrongdoing, but we see from the above accepted definition of love, that real love keeps no record of wrongs, therefore if Love = no record of wrongs, then all sin is forgiven if God loves you. If your sin is not forgiven, then it is still apparent, damning, and recorded. Therefore God, in keeping a record of your sin and withholding forgiveness, cannot love you as love is defined above.

I welcome you to change my mind on this. I've prayed over it and have yet to have a change in my own understanding.

Jesus told men to love their enemies. This also means that he loves his enemies. If we love only those who love us what reward have we.

But to say tat God so loved the world and that Jesus loves his enemies. Does not mean that the enemies of God have his love IN them or upon them.

Gods love is “towards” them as offered in Jesus Christ who died for thier sin. If they repent and believe. Then through faith the love of God is shed abroad in thier hearts

God’s wrath is on all that believe not . But his love is towards them and offered .and in some way he is still kind to the unloving and shows mercy to the good and the evil .

 

[Grip Docility]

The fact that there’s hell proves that God doesn’t show mercy to everyone. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. Mercy is driven by love. So if God loves everyone without condition, there’d be no need for hell.

Hell, in it’s uncontested root definition is a place for people that reject God to His Face.

You are blaming God for a person’s choice.

This is like a Good Husband being blamed for his wife leaving him.

I encourage you to disagree that God refers to Himself as the bridegroom. I’m anticipating your attempt to undermine the analogy, and reinforcing my point by saying this.

 

[Hammster]

We all are ressurected, per scripture. That’s a start. Hebrews 2:14 shows that His death broke the power of the one that wields death.

The Body of Christ that passes is with Him, now.

There is a raising of the dead, in Revelation.

If Thessalonians says we come back with Him and are caught up with Him, why is He “Judging” the dead instead of condemning the dead?

How does He have the ability to work with the unrepentant, one last time?

1 John 2:2. Not just our sins, but the sins of the Kosmou (root of Kosmo [Kosmos] (Universe).

Either we have to scrub that we are with Jesus upon death, or you acknowledge He propitiated for all.

It’s that simple.

Sophism that attempts to change the word world is again exposed by simple evaluation.

Non sequitur.

 

[Hammster]

Hell, in it’s uncontested root definition is a place for people that reject God to His Face.

You are blaming God for a person’s choice.

This is like a Good Husband being blamed for his wife leaving him.

I encourage you to disagree that God refers to Himself as the bridegroom. I’m anticipating your attempt to undermine the analogy, and reinforcing my point by saying this.

Then you’ll need to conclude that God does not have unconditional love. The condition is non-rejection. As long as you don’t reject God, He will love you forever and not send you to eternal torment.

 

[Grip Docility]

Then you’ll need to conclude that God does not have unconditional love. The condition is non-rejection. As long as you don’t reject God, He will love you forever and not send you to eternal torment.

As a father, if you had children that perpetually killed your other children and repeatedly woke you up with a knife drawn above you, would you be less of a father or less Loving to them if you had to have them institutionalized?

 

[Grip Docility]

Non sequitur.

That is a dishonest debate tactic. I’ve seen you use it several times.

Non sequitur means this:

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

But it does follow the previous argument and expose its error.

You like to call all irrelevant that doesn’t support your bias.

That isn’t how it works.

 

[Hammster]

As a father, if you had children that perpetually killed your other children and repeatedly woke you up with a knife drawn above you, would you be less of a father or less Loving to them if you had to have them institutionalized?

Not relevant as Scripture shows that not all are God’s children. And, it’s not a rebuttal, either.

 

[Hammster]

That is a dishonest debate tactic. I’ve seen you use it several times.

Non sequitur means this:
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

But it does follow the previous argument and expose its error.

You like to call all irrelevant that doesn’t support your bias.

That isn’t how it works.

Your post in no way addressed the question. Hence, non sequitur.

 

[Grip Docility]

Your post in no way addressed the question. Hence, non sequitur.

Dishonesty on your part twice.

You addressed two central points with your post.

God’s Mercy
God’s Love

You contested there validity by saying Hell was proof enough.

I gave you a scenario that proofs your statement incorrect and is easily comprehended as so. It was indefensible by you, so you chose to dishonestly claim Non Sequitur, because it’s a fancy debate word and you felt it was sufficient to sweep aside the point.

This is apparent to any unbiased reader.