Loving the Unelect

[redblue22]

If God only loves those who are elected--but I love even the unelected--does that mean I am better than God?

 

[Victor E.]

If God only loves those who are elected--but I love even the unelected--does that mean I am better than God?

He loves them also, otherwise He would not empower us to heal them. Actually, the word "Love" does not mean you love sinful and unScriptural behavior, it means you merely love the person made in the likeness and image of God unconditionally, in the hope that they repent. Love does not tolerate sin.

We love because God first loved us...1 John 4:19

It does not mean you are better than God, it means that you don't fully understand the meaning of perfect love. Romans 12:9

 

[hooverbranch]

Well in 1st John we are told that God is Love. So no you can not Love better than Love itself.

Now you are making the assumption that because someone is not elect. Thus going to Hell and going to suffer the Wrath of God that God does not Love them. And I get this in Romans 9 it states for Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. But if you look at the context it is not that God Hated Esau as much as Esau was not chosen to recieve Gods blessing through lineage. In Genesis by the end of the Jacob and Esau story the brothers had made ammends and Esau was a God honoring man.

Now onto the election point as it pertains to us and Love. Did God so Love the World that He gave us Jesus? (John 3:16) Now the word World in that verse means Jews and Gentiles, or all people groups, but that does not change the general Love for all people God freely gives. Is Romans 10:9 true? That is of you truly believe and Confess and follow Him you will be saved? If so that is a promise available to all in Love.

Now it is easy to look at things from the cosmic glimpse that the Bible gives us and get doscouraged and jagged. I mean Gods perspective of salvation and that is the truth of Election. And it is clear that we are giving that perspective to see who deserves the Glory in salvation. And that is God. (Ephesians 2:8) But we are also giving the verses that I shared earlier and they are not contradictions of themselves.

I am a 5 point Calvinist and believe that God is 100% sovereign. However when I was saved "I HAD TO CHOOSE HIM". That is from my earthly perspective (meaning what I can see and comprehend) I was giving a clear choice and I chose. This is because Gods promise of Salvation was giving to me in Love and I chose to accept it.

 

[Strivax]

If God only loves those who are elected--but I love even the unelected--does that mean I am better than God?

By the elect I presume you mean those for whom heaven is fore-ordained. In which case, the un-elect must be those barred from heaven, also fore-ordained.

I cannot see how these concepts are compatible with the unconditional love of God, or indeed, any normal notion of justice. If the eventual deployment of my soul has nothing to do with my agency, then why should I be either rewarded or punished? Mostly, it seems reasonable to think that ordinary, good, decent people get to enjoy heaven, and others don't. If you differ on this, perhaps you would like to elaborate.

But the answer to your direct question is yes, but if and only if some god were like that. However, if there were such a god, I believe it would be our lost-cause moral duty to oppose that god with every futile effort we could make.

Including, maybe, but not limited to, a general boycott of heaven.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[CrystalDragon]

He loves them also otherwise, He would not empower us to heal them. Actually, the word "Love" does not mean you love sinful and unScriptural behavior, it means you merely love the person made in the likeness and image of God unconditionally, in the hope that they repent. Love does not tolerate sin.

We love because God first loved us...1 John 4:19

It does not mean you are better than God, it means that you don't fully understand the meaning of perfect love. Romans 12:9

But hell can not possibly be "perfect love". Is torture is a definition of perfect love, then we should only say "I love you" to people who we care about until they don't believe in what we say and then waterboard them or toss them into a fire until they die, only he'll is worse because it's eternal. Come to think of it we'd have to redefine love in the dictionary if that is the case, as that definition of "love" seems more like the Ministry of Love in George Orwell's 1984.

Well in 1st John we are told that God is Love. So no you can not Love better than Love itself.

Now you are making the assumption that because someone is not elect. Thus going to Hell and going to suffer the Wrath of God that God does not Love them. And I get this in Romans 9 it states for Jacob I loved and Esau I hated. But if you look at the context it is not that God Hated Esau as much as Esau was not chosen to recieve Gods blessing through lineage. In Genesis by the end of the Jacob and Esau story the brothers had made ammends and Esau was a God honoring man.

Now onto the election point as it pertains to us and Love. Did God so Love the World that He gave us Jesus? (John 3:16) Now the word World in that verse means Jews and Gentiles, or all people groups, but that does not change the general Love for all people God freely gives. Is Romans 10:9 true? That is of you truly believe and Confess and follow Him you will be saved? If so that is a promise available to all in Love.

Now it is easy to look at things from the cosmic glimpse that the Bible gives us and get doscouraged and jagged. I mean Gods perspective of salvation and that is the truth of Election. And it is clear that we are giving that perspective to see who deserves the Glory in salvation. And that is God. (Ephesians 2:8) But we are also giving the verses that I shared earlier and they are not contradictions of themselves.

I am a 5 point Calvinist and believe that God is 100% sovereign. However when I was saved "I HAD TO CHOOSE HIM". That is from my earthly perspective (meaning what I can see and comprehend) I was giving a clear choice and I chose. This is because Gods promise of Salvation was giving to me in Love and I chose to accept it.

I have a problem with the "love unconditionally" thing. Punishment for a crime is one thing, infinite torturous punishment without end or relief is another thing altogether. The existence of hell alone indicates that there is a limit to God's "unconditional love" or else it wouldn't exist.

If someone is tortured by someone else, would you say that person loves them, let alone unconditionally? As I said above, working "love" into this would have us redefine the word in the dictionary or basically be some 1984 thing.

By the elect I presume you mean those for whom heaven is fore-ordained. In which case, the un-elect must be those barred from heaven, also fore-ordained.

I cannot see how these concepts are compatible with the unconditional love of God, or indeed, any normal notion of justice. If the eventual deployment of my soul has nothing to do with my agency, then why should I be either rewarded or punished? Mostly, it seems reasonable to think that ordinary, good, decent people get to enjoy heaven, and others don't. If you differ on this, perhaps you would like to elaborate.

But the answer to your direct question is yes, but if and only if some god were like that. However, if there were such a god, I believe it would be our lost-cause moral duty to oppose that god with every futile effort we could make.

Including, maybe, but not limited to, a general boycott of heaven.

Best wishes, Strivax.

If someone is for-ordained to be tortured without end, why create them? Creating something that you know perfectly well what they will do and even determine what they will do strips away any agency of choice and indicates "free will" is merely an illusion we comfort ourselves with (when God even had instances in the Bible of removing someone's supposed "free will".

And for the last part, finally someone agrees.

 

[Tull]

No one knows who the elect are and people flatter their egos when they claim to

 

[Strivax]

I have a problem with the "love unconditionally" thing. Punishment for a crime is one thing, infinite torturous punishment without end or relief is another thing altogether. The existence of hell alone indicates that there is a limit to God's "unconditional love" or else it wouldn't exist.

One thing I am sure of; God's loving respect for our autonomy includes forbearance when we decide to create our own hells.

If someone is for-ordained to be tortured without end, why create them?

Good question.

Creating something that you know perfectly well what they will do and even determine what they will do strips away any agency of choice and indicates "free will" is merely an illusion we comfort ourselves with (when God even had instances in the Bible of removing someone's supposed "free will".

The relationship between human free-will and God's alleged omniscience is, I agree, a troubling one. If God knows the future, he knows what we will do in the future. If He knows what we will do, then what we will do is fixed. So, where is the scope for freedom of will?

My own inclination is to relax the concept of divine omniscience, or at least regard it in more flexible manner, rather than relinquish ideas of human freedom to operate according to our predilictions, predispositions, convictions, philosophies and characters. And even to override them all, if that is what we decide.

And for the last part, finally someone agrees.

I am glad we have some common ground.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[hooverbranch]

But hell can not possibly be "perfect live". Is torture is a definition of perfect love, then we should only say "I love you" to people who we care about until they don't believe in what we say and then waterboard them or toss them into a fire until they die, only he'll is worse because it's eternal. Come to think of it we'd have to redefine love in the dictionary if that is the case, as that definition of "love" seems more like the Ministry of Love in George Orwell's 1984.




I have a problem with the "love unconditionally" thing. Punishment for a crime is one thing, infinite torturous punishment without end or relief is another thing altogether. The existence of hell alone indicates that there is a limit to God's "unconditional love" or else it wouldn't exist.

If someone is tortured by someone else, would you say that person loves them, let alone unconditionally? As I said above, working "love" into this would have us redefine the word in the dictionary or basically be some 1984 thing.



If someone is for-ordained to be tortured without end, why create them? Creating something that you know perfectly well what they will do and even determine what they will do strips away any agency of choice and indicates "free will" is merely an illusion we comfort ourselves with (when God even had instances in the Bible of removing someone's supposed "free will".

And for the last part, finally someone agrees.

The problem however is you are trying to put human constraints on God. First off God is infinitely Just as well as Infinitely Love. Those are not in contradiction. When Adam and Eve sinned against a Perfect and Holy God the punishment was and is death.

If God were to forgive us willy nilly then what kind of Justice is that? But instead God gave His Son to take that wrath for us. God did not have to send us Jesus. But He did because of Love.

Now do I believe it is Love to torture someone for all eternity? No, but I am not the almighty creator God, so who am I to judge His Love and Justice by my finite human comprehension. It instead is my Job to fulfill the Commission given to me in Matthew 20:18-20 and show everyone I can the opportunity to be spared by God's Justice that is freely Giving to us.

 

[Strivax]

If God were to forgive us willy nilly then what kind of Justice is that?

Uh huh. But I think God does forgive us 'willy-nilly'. After all, He created us; He is ultimately responsible.

As for Justice, well, in order to receive that forgiveness, and feel we have earned it, and be redeemed, we need to repent and atone. And anyone who has truly repented, and truly atoned, will tell you that this is hard road to travel, and a life changing process. It's not the soft option.

I truly do not think we need a lake-of-fire-eternal-torment-Hell, as well, to restore us to the way God meant for us to be when we were first made. Unless the Hell be that mental place where people who will not repent, and will not atone, find themselves, separated from God and goodness, of their own accord.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Victor E.]

No one knows who the elect are and people flatter their egos when they claim to

God's Word specifies clearly, if we would read it.

 

[hooverbranch]

God's Word specifies clearly, if we would read it.

I think his point was more we can not look at a random guy on the street and say "well he is elect and will recieve Gods word, but that guy over there is not". Where as you are right the Bible very clearly tells us how we can now we are saved through our fruits.

 

[Tull]

God's Word specifies clearly, if we would read it.

It tells us that those who do the will of God and accept the righteousness of Jesus will enter the kingdom of God,it does not tell us individual by individual and you have no way of knowing when you first meet someone where they are in that definition.

 

[Strivax]

So, just for the purposes of discussion, does a morally 'bad' Christian get saved, when a morally 'good' Jew or Moslem or Hindu or Buddhist gets condemned?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Tull]

John 14:6

 

[Strivax]

Hmmm. If you were starting off a religion, wouldn't that be precisely the kind of thing you might say? And doesn't it kind of diminish the importance of individual moral stature? And could there not be a route to God who is ultimate morality, as exemplified by Jesus, just by being moral, whether in imitation or by independent means, irrespective of belief system?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Tull]

Hmmm. If you were starting off a religion, wouldn't that be precisely the kind of thing you might say? And doesn't it kind of diminish the importance of individual moral stature?

Hmm,individual moral stature ?

Luke 18:11

 

[Tull]

Some appropriate mood music LOL

 

[Strivax]

Hmm,individual moral stature ?

Luke 18:11

Sure. Some people are good, some people are bad. And there are varying degrees of both; that is what I mean by moral stature. It seems to me, all religions (and indeed, schisms, denominations, sects and cults within them) have a mix of them all. So the previous question (#14) remains. Do you really want to send (morally) bad Christians to heaven, and, say, (morally) good Jews to hell?

Incidentally, as regards relevance to the OP, I don't regard the idea of heaven being the monopoly of only Christians as entirely different in kind from the idea of heaven being the monopoly of only elect Christians.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Tull]

Beleive what you want,its none of my business.

 

[Strivax]

Beleive what you want,its none of my business.

Of course it is. What we believe affects how we think, what we say, and what we do. What the world believes is entirely the business of the rest of the world. Contradict me as you wish; that's what discussion forums are for.

Best wishes, Strivax.