|
|
Post by civic on Apr 14, 2023 6:04:31 GMT -8
I was looking at an old thread on another forum I started about love that had over a 1000 responses and I was leaving Calvinism at the time and being attacked by them like a pack of wolves discussing Gods love a the hate/love issue with Jacob and Esau. I cut/pasted my responses to many of their objections in this post.
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
Titus 3:4
But when the kindness and the love of mankind of God our Savior appeared
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Corinthians 5:14
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
In the past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of Calvinism among American evangelicals. This resurgence is especially evident within the Southern Baptist Convention, which historically has been and still is divided over the issue. However, it has also made its presence felt in Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God, which do not have historic ties to Calvinism.
By Calvinism, I mean specifically the doctrine of salvation that is commonly explained by means of the acronym, TULIP:
• T = Total depravity
• U = Unconditional election
• L = Limited atonement
• I = Irresistible grace
• P = Perseverance of the saints
In the seventeenth century, Jacob Arminius—a Dutch Reformed theologian—set forth a different understanding of salvation that has been called Arminianism after him. It is sometimes explained by means of the acronym, FACTS:
• F = Freed by grace to believe
• A = Atonement for all
• C = Conditional election
• T = Total depravity
• S = Security in Christ
In Does God Love Everyone? Jerry L. Walls—an evangelical philosopher—outlines an argument against Calvinism and for Arminianism. Its strength is that it focuses on the central point of the disagreement between them. Walls writes:
The deepest issue that divides Arminians and Calvinists is not the sovereignty of God, predestination, or the authority of the Bible. The deepest difference pertains to how we understand the character of God. Is God good in the sense that he deeply and sincerely loves all people?
According to Walls, the answer of Arminianism is “Yes.” The answer of Calvinism is “No.” As Calvinist author Arthur W. Pink put it in The Sovereignty of God: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody…” Walls argues that Pink’s statement is characteristic of Calvinism, even if it’s stated with a bluntness uncharacteristic of most Calvinists.
A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals.
To see why this is so, consider the argument Walls makes:
1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.
Clearly, this set of propositions contains a contradiction between 2 and 6. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm 2, however. They’re not universalists, in other words. Similarly, both affirm 4.
So, how do they resolve the contradiction? Arminians do so by denying 5. They deny, in other words, that grace is irresistible.
Irresistible grace is part and parcel of Calvinism, however. It’s the I in TULIP. That means Calvinists must deny either 1 or 3. That is, they must deny either that “God truly loves all persons” or that “Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.” As noted above, Arthur W. Pink clearly denied 1. (Walls quotes Calvin himself to similar effect.)
Contemporary Calvinists rarely deny 1, however. Instead, they affirm that God truly loves all persons. For example, D. A. Carson affirms that God loves everyone in the sense that He exercises “providential love over all that he has made” and adopts a “salvific stance toward his fallen world.” However, Carson denies that God gives everyone the “particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.” It’s hard to square this “love” for “all persons” with the definition of love in 3. A God who could but chooses not to bestow “particular, effective, selecting love” on everyone does not “truly” love them because He does not seek their eternal “well-being” and “true flourishing.”
Walls suggests one further wrinkle when he discusses John Piper, probably the best known Baptist Calvinist. Walls argues that Piper denies 5, not by ditching “irresistible grace” but by suggesting that God has a “greater value” than salvation. Such as what? Piper writes, “The answer the Reformed give is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:21–23) and the humbling of man so he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).” Because of this “greater value,” it seems that Piper denies God “could give all persons ‘irresistible grace’ [to be saved].” Some evidently must be condemned for God’s glory.
In order to maintain God’s sovereignty in election then, or to promote God’s glory, Calvinism denies that God loves everyone in the truest sense. Like Walls, I find this denial difficult to swallow. A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals, a God who is love (1 John 4:8).
Walls’ book is a brief outline of a much larger argument. Those looking for a more detailed argument should pick up his Why I Am Not a Calvinist, coauthored with Joseph R. Dongell. But that argument, even in outline form here, is difficult to rebut, as far as I am concerned.
Book Reviewed: Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What Is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016).
Hate defined
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.
Barnes
Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Malachi 1:3," And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" compare Jeremiah 49:17-18; Ezekiel 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hatred" in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Genesis 29:30-31; Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;" Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.; Luke 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."
hated] Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. Cambridge
BDAG.
So my original post quoting Strongs/Thayers still stands.
to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.
John says hate is indifference with a brother below
1 John 3
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
BDAG.
② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.
And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce
I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.
Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).
Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.
13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.
The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.
Well there are some obvious principles if one can look past their theological bias. Several calvinists disagreed with the following principles to defend God hated/despised esau.
1- God loves sinners, God loves the world meaning all people, everyone.
2- So when its says God hates we must examine what/who is the recipient of the hate and why. Why God would detest something/someone vs love less.
3- We use the lexicons to help us determine how the word is being used in various contexts/passages.
4- We use other scriptures to compare the word/verse with to get an idea how its used
5- We for example can learn about the " idioms" from the original people, places and times
6- With hate we learn it is an Jewish idiom being used in conjunction with love as a comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Apr 15, 2023 2:15:15 GMT -8
Great read, Civic! I enjoyed reading the various commentator’s comments. It should also be pointed out that the acceptance and rejection was in reference to God’s departure from the cultural primogenitor construct in which Esau was the firstborn and should have been the one chosen. It was not a matter of salvation, but whose specific family line would carry out God’s purpose!
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Apr 15, 2023 11:01:35 GMT -8
Great read, Civic! I enjoyed reading the various commentator’s comments. It should also be pointed out that the acceptance and rejection was in reference to God’s departure from the cultural primogenitor construct in which Esau was the firstborn and should have been the one chosen. It was not a matter of salvation, but whose specific family line would carry out God’s purpose! Doug Thanks brother and good to see you ! |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Apr 15, 2023 14:19:16 GMT -8
I was looking at an old thread on another forum I started about love that had over a 1000 responses and I was leaving Calvinism at the time and being attacked by them like a pack of wolves discussing Gods love a the hate/love issue with Jacob and Esau. I cut/pasted my responses to many of their objections in this post.
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
Titus 3:4
But when the kindness and the love of mankind of God our Savior appeared
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Corinthians 5:14
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
In the past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of Calvinism among American evangelicals. This resurgence is especially evident within the Southern Baptist Convention, which historically has been and still is divided over the issue. However, it has also made its presence felt in Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God, which do not have historic ties to Calvinism.
By Calvinism, I mean specifically the doctrine of salvation that is commonly explained by means of the acronym, TULIP:
• T = Total depravity
• U = Unconditional election
• L = Limited atonement
• I = Irresistible grace
• P = Perseverance of the saints
In the seventeenth century, Jacob Arminius—a Dutch Reformed theologian—set forth a different understanding of salvation that has been called Arminianism after him. It is sometimes explained by means of the acronym, FACTS:
• F = Freed by grace to believe
• A = Atonement for all
• C = Conditional election
• T = Total depravity
• S = Security in Christ
In Does God Love Everyone? Jerry L. Walls—an evangelical philosopher—outlines an argument against Calvinism and for Arminianism. Its strength is that it focuses on the central point of the disagreement between them. Walls writes:
The deepest issue that divides Arminians and Calvinists is not the sovereignty of God, predestination, or the authority of the Bible. The deepest difference pertains to how we understand the character of God. Is God good in the sense that he deeply and sincerely loves all people?
According to Walls, the answer of Arminianism is “Yes.” The answer of Calvinism is “No.” As Calvinist author Arthur W. Pink put it in The Sovereignty of God: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody…” Walls argues that Pink’s statement is characteristic of Calvinism, even if it’s stated with a bluntness uncharacteristic of most Calvinists.
A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals.
To see why this is so, consider the argument Walls makes:
1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.
Clearly, this set of propositions contains a contradiction between 2 and 6. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm 2, however. They’re not universalists, in other words. Similarly, both affirm 4.
So, how do they resolve the contradiction? Arminians do so by denying 5. They deny, in other words, that grace is irresistible.
Irresistible grace is part and parcel of Calvinism, however. It’s the I in TULIP. That means Calvinists must deny either 1 or 3. That is, they must deny either that “God truly loves all persons” or that “Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.” As noted above, Arthur W. Pink clearly denied 1. (Walls quotes Calvin himself to similar effect.)
Contemporary Calvinists rarely deny 1, however. Instead, they affirm that God truly loves all persons. For example, D. A. Carson affirms that God loves everyone in the sense that He exercises “providential love over all that he has made” and adopts a “salvific stance toward his fallen world.” However, Carson denies that God gives everyone the “particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.” It’s hard to square this “love” for “all persons” with the definition of love in 3. A God who could but chooses not to bestow “particular, effective, selecting love” on everyone does not “truly” love them because He does not seek their eternal “well-being” and “true flourishing.”
Walls suggests one further wrinkle when he discusses John Piper, probably the best known Baptist Calvinist. Walls argues that Piper denies 5, not by ditching “irresistible grace” but by suggesting that God has a “greater value” than salvation. Such as what? Piper writes, “The answer the Reformed give is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:21–23) and the humbling of man so he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).” Because of this “greater value,” it seems that Piper denies God “could give all persons ‘irresistible grace’ [to be saved].” Some evidently must be condemned for God’s glory.
In order to maintain God’s sovereignty in election then, or to promote God’s glory, Calvinism denies that God loves everyone in the truest sense. Like Walls, I find this denial difficult to swallow. A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals, a God who is love (1 John 4:8).
Walls’ book is a brief outline of a much larger argument. Those looking for a more detailed argument should pick up his Why I Am Not a Calvinist, coauthored with Joseph R. Dongell. But that argument, even in outline form here, is difficult to rebut, as far as I am concerned.
Book Reviewed: Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What Is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016).
Hate defined
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.
Barnes
Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Malachi 1:3," And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" compare Jeremiah 49:17-18; Ezekiel 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hatred" in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Genesis 29:30-31; Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;" Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.; Luke 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."
hated] Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. Cambridge
BDAG.
So my original post quoting Strongs/Thayers still stands.
to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.
John says hate is indifference with a brother below
1 John 3
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
BDAG.
② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.
And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce
I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.
Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).
Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.
13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.
The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.
Well there are some obvious principles if one can look past their theological bias. Several calvinists disagreed with the following principles to defend God hated/despised esau.
1- God loves sinners, God loves the world meaning all people, everyone.
2- So when its says God hates we must examine what/who is the recipient of the hate and why. Why God would detest something/someone vs love less.
3- We use the lexicons to help us determine how the word is being used in various contexts/passages.
4- We use other scriptures to compare the word/verse with to get an idea how its used
5- We for example can learn about the " idioms" from the original people, places and times
6- With hate we learn it is an Jewish idiom being used in conjunction with love as a comparison.
Leaving alone for now the treatment on the definition of 'hatred', I want to answer, to some extent, the rest of your post. I'm too lazy to spend the time looking up the quotes from Pink, Walls, Piper, etc, but (and as always, unavoidably) they are taken out of context, so I'm not able to comment much to them except to what is said by them or concerning them in your post. Piper, I know a little about, and I have to say he does not represent me, nor does Pink, for that matter, though I think highly of both, but mostly of Pink. Walls sets up certain 'truth' statements, your first list of 6. His argument rests on them, in which he says both Arminians and Calvinists accept both 2 and 4. But he makes the mistake of assuming that since they are acceptable to both, that those statements are representative of how they think of the matter. #2, perhaps, but not #4. #4 is a continuation of the statement of #3, which is not, (at least to my mind), representative of God's love. Walls wishes for a generic meaning of love, that adequately and accurately describes the love of man and the love of God. But we know that God is not like us. While that may not be satisfying to the human mind to hear, it is nonetheless relevant to the fact that we do not know the love of God, no matter how deeply we know it. There is more to it than we can know. Pink (in this out-of-context statement) deals with this by rejecting outright that God loves everybody. I have to admit that I too argue against the notion that what God means in the usual texts used to present God's love for absolutely everyone, necessarily mean, 'absolutely everyone'. But not being dogmatic concerning the meaning of all of them, I can admit to a certain kind of love, which is that of God being intimately involved in every tiniest motion of every particle and force. That may not sound like any definition of love to most, but I don't care. I think it bears on what God means by love. But I don't think God would define love by that alone. But as to the notion that God's love is equal and "fair" to all, I reject that very strongly, not only on Logical and Biblical measures, but by empirical fact. (But in the question of freewill vs predestination this doesn't stand as the anchor for my arguments, though it could, I suppose. I hope nobody takes what they think to defeat my notion that God does not love everyone equally, will defeat my opinion that the Arminian's 'freewill' is an invalid concept.) There are several other commentable statements in your post, but this is enough for now. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Apr 15, 2023 14:39:37 GMT -8
I was looking at an old thread on another forum I started about love that had over a 1000 responses and I was leaving Calvinism at the time and being attacked by them like a pack of wolves discussing Gods love a the hate/love issue with Jacob and Esau. I cut/pasted my responses to many of their objections in this post.
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
Titus 3:4
But when the kindness and the love of mankind of God our Savior appeared
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard “delay,” but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Corinthians 5:14
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
In the past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of Calvinism among American evangelicals. This resurgence is especially evident within the Southern Baptist Convention, which historically has been and still is divided over the issue. However, it has also made its presence felt in Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God, which do not have historic ties to Calvinism.
By Calvinism, I mean specifically the doctrine of salvation that is commonly explained by means of the acronym, TULIP:
• T = Total depravity
• U = Unconditional election
• L = Limited atonement
• I = Irresistible grace
• P = Perseverance of the saints
In the seventeenth century, Jacob Arminius—a Dutch Reformed theologian—set forth a different understanding of salvation that has been called Arminianism after him. It is sometimes explained by means of the acronym, FACTS:
• F = Freed by grace to believe
• A = Atonement for all
• C = Conditional election
• T = Total depravity
• S = Security in Christ
In Does God Love Everyone? Jerry L. Walls—an evangelical philosopher—outlines an argument against Calvinism and for Arminianism. Its strength is that it focuses on the central point of the disagreement between them. Walls writes:
The deepest issue that divides Arminians and Calvinists is not the sovereignty of God, predestination, or the authority of the Bible. The deepest difference pertains to how we understand the character of God. Is God good in the sense that he deeply and sincerely loves all people?
According to Walls, the answer of Arminianism is “Yes.” The answer of Calvinism is “No.” As Calvinist author Arthur W. Pink put it in The Sovereignty of God: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody…” Walls argues that Pink’s statement is characteristic of Calvinism, even if it’s stated with a bluntness uncharacteristic of most Calvinists.
A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals.
To see why this is so, consider the argument Walls makes:
1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.
Clearly, this set of propositions contains a contradiction between 2 and 6. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm 2, however. They’re not universalists, in other words. Similarly, both affirm 4.
So, how do they resolve the contradiction? Arminians do so by denying 5. They deny, in other words, that grace is irresistible.
Irresistible grace is part and parcel of Calvinism, however. It’s the I in TULIP. That means Calvinists must deny either 1 or 3. That is, they must deny either that “God truly loves all persons” or that “Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.” As noted above, Arthur W. Pink clearly denied 1. (Walls quotes Calvin himself to similar effect.)
Contemporary Calvinists rarely deny 1, however. Instead, they affirm that God truly loves all persons. For example, D. A. Carson affirms that God loves everyone in the sense that He exercises “providential love over all that he has made” and adopts a “salvific stance toward his fallen world.” However, Carson denies that God gives everyone the “particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.” It’s hard to square this “love” for “all persons” with the definition of love in 3. A God who could but chooses not to bestow “particular, effective, selecting love” on everyone does not “truly” love them because He does not seek their eternal “well-being” and “true flourishing.”
Walls suggests one further wrinkle when he discusses John Piper, probably the best known Baptist Calvinist. Walls argues that Piper denies 5, not by ditching “irresistible grace” but by suggesting that God has a “greater value” than salvation. Such as what? Piper writes, “The answer the Reformed give is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:21–23) and the humbling of man so he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).” Because of this “greater value,” it seems that Piper denies God “could give all persons ‘irresistible grace’ [to be saved].” Some evidently must be condemned for God’s glory.
In order to maintain God’s sovereignty in election then, or to promote God’s glory, Calvinism denies that God loves everyone in the truest sense. Like Walls, I find this denial difficult to swallow. A god who can save all but chooses not to is not the God whom the Bible reveals, a God who is love (1 John 4:8).
Walls’ book is a brief outline of a much larger argument. Those looking for a more detailed argument should pick up his Why I Am Not a Calvinist, coauthored with Joseph R. Dongell. But that argument, even in outline form here, is difficult to rebut, as far as I am concerned.
Book Reviewed: Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What Is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2016).
Hate defined
Original Word: μισέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: miseó
Phonetic Spelling: (mis-eh'-o)
Definition: to hate
Usage: I hate, detest, love less, esteem less.
Barnes
Have I hated - This does not mean any positive hatred; but that he had preferred Jacob, and had withheld from Esau those privileges and blessings which he had conferred on the posterity of Jacob. This is explained in Malachi 1:3," And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness;" compare Jeremiah 49:17-18; Ezekiel 35:6. It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hatred" in this comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love, or the withholding of the expressions of affection; compare Genesis 29:30-31; Proverbs 13:24, "He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;" Matthew 6:24, "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.; Luke 14:26, "if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."
hated] Cp. Genesis 29:33; Genesis 29:30, for proof that this word, in contrast with love, need not imply positive hatred, but the absence of love, or even less love. One verse there tells us that Jacob “hated” Leah, the other that he “loved Rachel more.” See too Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. Cambridge
BDAG.
So my original post quoting Strongs/Thayers still stands.
to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.
John says hate is indifference with a brother below
1 John 3
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.
BDAG.
② to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ Lk 14:26 (cp. the formulation Plut, Mor. 556d οὐδʼ ἐμίσουν ἑαυτούς; on the theme cp. Tyrtaeus [VII B.C.] 8, 5 D.3). Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f). Perh. 2 Cl 6:6 (s. 1b). (JDenney, The Word ‘Hate’ in Lk 14:26: ET 21, 1910, 41f; WBleibtreu, Paradoxe Aussprüche Jesu: Theol. Arbeiten aus d. wissensch. Prediger-Verein d. Rheinprovinz, new ser. 20, 24, 15–35; RSockman, The Paradoxes of J. ’36).—ACarr, The Mng. of ‘Hatred’ in the NT: Exp. 6th ser., 12, 1905, 153–60.—DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 653.
And here is a Greek Scholar/Teacher Robert Mounce
I loved, but Esau I hated” (Mal 1:2–3). This should not be interpreted to mean that God actually hated Esau. The strong contrast is a Semitic idiom that heightens the comparison by stating it in absolute terms. 17
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 198–199.
Berkeley softens the contrast translating, “To Jacob I was drawn, but Esau I repudiated” (the NRSV has “chose” and “rejected”). In discussing the “hatred” of God, Michel comments that it “is not so much an emotion as a rejection in will and deed” (TDNT 4.687).
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995).
Esau I hated. I.e., “loved less,” according to an ancient Near Eastern hyperbole. It expresses the lack of gratuitous election of Esau and the Edomites (Idumaeans). See Gen 29:30–31: “he loved Rachel more than Leah …; when the Lord saw that Leah was hated …”; cf. Deut 21:15–17; compare Luke 14:26 (“hate”) with Matt 10:37 (“love more”). There is no hint here of predestination to “grace” or “glory” of an individual; it is an expression of the choice of corporate Israel over corporate Edom.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 563.
13. Characteristically Paul backs up his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this one from Malachi 1:2–3: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Two questions are important here: Is Paul referring to nations or individuals? and What is meant by hated? As to the first, we have just seen that the Genesis passage refers primarily to nations and we would expect that to continue here. That this is the case seems clear from what Malachi writes about Esau: “Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals” (Mal. 1:3). Both in Genesis and Malachi the reference is clearly to nations, and we should accept this as Paul’s meaning accordingly.
The meaning of hated is a different kind of problem. There is a difficulty in that Scripture speaks of a love of God for the whole world (John 3:16) and the meaning of “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) is surely that God loves, quite irrespective of merit or demerit in the beloved. Specifically he is said to love sinners (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that in Scripture there are cases where “hate” seems clearly to mean “love less” (e.g., Gen. 29:31, 33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25). Many find this an acceptable solution here: God loved Esau (and the nation Edom) less than he loved Jacob (and Israel). But it is perhaps more likely that like Calvin we should understand the expression in the sense “reject” over against “accept”. He explains the passage thus: “I chose Jacob and rejected Esau, induced to this course by my mercy alone, and not by any worthiness in his works.… I had rejected the Edomites.…” This accords with the stress throughout this passage on the thought of election for service. God chose Israel for this role; he did not so choose Edom.
Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 356–357.
Well there are some obvious principles if one can look past their theological bias. Several calvinists disagreed with the following principles to defend God hated/despised esau.
1- God loves sinners, God loves the world meaning all people, everyone.
2- So when its says God hates we must examine what/who is the recipient of the hate and why. Why God would detest something/someone vs love less.
3- We use the lexicons to help us determine how the word is being used in various contexts/passages.
4- We use other scriptures to compare the word/verse with to get an idea how its used
5- We for example can learn about the " idioms" from the original people, places and times
6- With hate we learn it is an Jewish idiom being used in conjunction with love as a comparison.
Leaving alone for now the treatment on the definition of 'hatred', I want to answer, to some extent, the rest of your post. I'm too lazy to spend the time looking up the quotes from Pink, Walls, Piper, etc, but (and as always, unavoidably) they are taken out of context, so I'm not able to comment much to them except to what is said by them or concerning them in your post. Piper, I know a little about, and I have to say he does not represent me, nor does Pink, for that matter, though I think highly of both, but mostly of Pink. Walls sets up certain 'truth' statements, your first list of 6. His argument rests on them, in which he says both Arminians and Calvinists accept both 2 and 4. But he makes the mistake of assuming that since they are acceptable to both, that those statements are representative of how they think of the matter. #2, perhaps, but not #4. #4 is a continuation of the statement of #3, which is not, (at least to my mind), representative of God's love. Walls wishes for a generic meaning of love, that adequately and accurately describes the love of man and the love of God. But we know that God is not like us. While that may not be satisfying to the human mind to hear, it is nonetheless relevant to the fact that we do not know the love of God, no matter how deeply we know it. There is more to it than we can know. Pink (in this out-of-context statement) deals with this by rejecting outright that God loves everybody. I have to admit that I too argue against the notion that what God means in the usual texts used to present God's love for absolutely everyone, necessarily mean, 'absolutely everyone'. But not being dogmatic concerning the meaning of all of them, I can admit to a certain kind of love, which is that of God being intimately involved in every tiniest motion of every particle and force. That may not sound like any definition of love to most, but I don't care. I think it bears on what God means by love. But I don't think God would define love by that alone. But as to the notion that God's love is equal and "fair" to all, I reject that very strongly, not only on Logical and Biblical measures, but by empirical fact. (But in the question of freewill vs predestination this doesn't stand as the anchor for my arguments, though it could, I suppose. I hope nobody takes what they think to defeat my notion that God does not love everyone equally, will defeat my opinion that the Arminian's 'freewill' is an invalid concept.) There are several other commentable statements in your post, but this is enough for now. Brother did you ever read this post of mine here. I go into it in more detail on Gods love. Let me know what you think. Thanks !
|
|
|
|
Post by rockson on Apr 15, 2023 21:01:30 GMT -8
In regard to a statement by one that we don't know the love of God no matter how deeply we know it, in other words that being a defense of Calvinistic thinking that well....love just might not be what you think and God might be horribly opposite to our what we have learned so far....problem is none of us then would even have the faintest notion on HOW TO LOVE. We know LOVE does certain things and acts in a certain way. 1 Cor 13 the love chapter tells us how.
We're even told we're to love our wives as Christ loved the church....that would mean be fair to her and be kind that would mean be just and NOT unjust. Are we to believe then that we don't really KNOW what is loving? There are certain principals about what LOVE is and does and the nature of God's love in us has provided us the peace as we're following the way of LOVE.
To say there's some type of changing of gears in deeper knowledge that love turns into the opposite of what we know that is to accommodate the horrible ways of thinking of Calvinism and it can all be reconciled in truth it seems to me a desperate longing to want it to be true while all the time they're agreeing YES it doesn't seem to make sense. I'd say go with what we know about LOVE and justice and don't fool around with any notion that everything of logic doesn't turn upside down in some super shock that NO God's character is really this way. I'll say again we right now would not even know how to LOVE anybody if such is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Apr 16, 2023 4:35:11 GMT -8
In regard to a statement by one that we don't know the love of God no matter how deeply we know it, in other words that being a defense of Calvinistic thinking that well....love just might not be what you think and God might be horribly opposite to our what we have learned so far....problem is none of us then would even have the faintest notion on HOW TO LOVE. We know LOVE does certain things and acts in a certain way. 1 Cor 13 the love chapter tells us how. We're even told we're to love our wives as Christ loved the church....that would mean be fair to her and be kind that would mean be just and NOT unjust. Are we to believe then that we don't really KNOW what is loving? There are certain principals about what LOVE is and does and the nature of God's love in us has provided us the peace as we're following the way of LOVE. To say there's some type of changing of gears in deeper knowledge that love turns into the opposite of what we know that is to accommodate the horrible ways of thinking of Calvinism and it can all be reconciled in truth it seems to me a desperate longing to want it to be true while all the time they're agreeing YES it doesn't seem to make sense. I'd say go with what we know about LOVE and justice and don't fool around with any notion that everything of logic doesn't turn upside down in some super shock that NO God's character is really this way. I'll say again we right now would not even know how to LOVE anybody if such is the case. Agreed brother good points. Its not that hard to see what Gods love is by looking at the life of Jesus ( God Incarnate ) in the gospels. We can see how He loved and also how He defined loved. Besides this we can read any Greek lexicon and see how it defines agapeo and phileo. Love of both the mind and the heart which parallels Jesus command to love God with all of our minds, heart, soul and strength and your neighbor. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 5, 2023 12:02:55 GMT -8
There are so many misnomers running around about God and His love and what that looks like in regard to mankind. If anyone wants to know what God is like and what He thinks we need to look no further than Jesus and His teachings since He is the Eternal God who became man.
1- Jesus taught us to love our enemies and pray for them
2- Jesus lived among sinners, ate with them and loved them, had compassion on them.
3- Jesus loves sinners, not hates them
4- Jesus on the cross said please forgive them Father for they know not what they do- His enemies who hated Him at the time.
5- Jesus came to seek and save the lost, the sinner
6- Jesus showed us what love looks like, acts like, talks like, lives like and how it treats people.
7- Jesus told us all the law and commandments are wrapped up/fulfilled in loving God with all our being( heart, mind,soul ) and your neighbor as you do yourself.
8- Jesus said if you really love Him you will do what He has commanded
9- Love is described perfectly in 1 Corinthians 13- If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.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.8 Love never fails.
10- Love in action in Galatians 5- But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
I could list another 10 points to this list but this should be plenty to get the point across. The wrath, anger, hatred about God towards us misunderstood by many. Gods wrath always falls upon the reprobate, apostate, those hardened against God, those who are wicked and rebellious that reject Gods provision for their sins by Jesus sacrifice.
conclusion: because God is Love and Jesus is God we can see to perfection that 1 Cor 13 and the fruit of the spirit in Gal 5:22-23 describes Jesus to a tee . He is love incarnate since God is love we see Him in action described in the gospels and where the Bible defines love.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 11, 2023 14:28:24 GMT -8
In regard to a statement by one that we don't know the love of God no matter how deeply we know it, in other words that being a defense of Calvinistic thinking that well....love just might not be what you think and God might be horribly opposite to our what we have learned so far....problem is none of us then would even have the faintest notion on HOW TO LOVE. We know LOVE does certain things and acts in a certain way. 1 Cor 13 the love chapter tells us how. We're even told we're to love our wives as Christ loved the church....that would mean be fair to her and be kind that would mean be just and NOT unjust. Are we to believe then that we don't really KNOW what is loving? There are certain principals about what LOVE is and does and the nature of God's love in us has provided us the peace as we're following the way of LOVE. To say there's some type of changing of gears in deeper knowledge that love turns into the opposite of what we know that is to accommodate the horrible ways of thinking of Calvinism and it can all be reconciled in truth it seems to me a desperate longing to want it to be true while all the time they're agreeing YES it doesn't seem to make sense. I'd say go with what we know about LOVE and justice and don't fool around with any notion that everything of logic doesn't turn upside down in some super shock that NO God's character is really this way. I'll say again we right now would not even know how to LOVE anybody if such is the case. I know you have allot to say on the topic I’ve read your posts over the years . Please feel free to share them brother  |
|
|
|
Post by dizerner2 on Jul 11, 2023 15:12:57 GMT -8
I believe we can make a strong cumulative logical argument from the attributes of God.
Is God maximally or partially righteous?
Is God maximally or partially just?
Is God maximally or partially powerful?
Is God maximally or partially intelligent?
Is God maximally or partially holy?
Is God maximally or partially pure?
Is God maximally or partially beautiful?
Is God maximally or partially worthy?
Is God maximally or partially all-present?
Is God maximally or partially self-sufficient?
Is God maximally or partially transcendent?
Is God maximally or partially infinite?
Is God maximally or partially faithful?
Is God maximally or partially perfect?
I don't think any Bible-believing Christian can honestly say "God is partially X" for any other attribute and not feel a twinge of blasphemy inside, and know it violates the overall descriptions given of God’s attributes deduced from Scripture. You don’t find a Biblical or logical case that God is ever “partially” an attribute, a limited inferior mixture of something. Yet some don't blink an eye to claim God is not maximally loving, not maximally good, and not maximally honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 11, 2023 16:13:55 GMT -8
I believe we can make a strong cumulative logical argument from the attributes of God. Is God maximally or partially righteous? Is God maximally or partially just? Is God maximally or partially powerful? Is God maximally or partially intelligent? Is God maximally or partially holy? Is God maximally or partially pure? Is God maximally or partially beautiful? Is God maximally or partially worthy? Is God maximally or partially all-present? Is God maximally or partially self-sufficient? Is God maximally or partially transcendent? Is God maximally or partially infinite? Is God maximally or partially faithful? Is God maximally or partially perfect? I don't think any Bible-believing Christian can honestly say "God is partially X" for any other attribute and not feel a twinge of blasphemy inside, and know it violates the overall descriptions given of God’s attributes deduced from Scripture. You don’t find a Biblical or logical case that God is ever “partially” an attribute, a limited inferior mixture of something. Yet some don't blink an eye to claim God is not maximally loving, not maximally good, and not maximally honest. Better yet we can make a case from Gods innate attributes. 1-Aseity- Self Sufficient 2-Eternal 3-Omnipresent 4-Omnipotent 5-Omniscient 6-Love 7-Holy 8-Immutable 9-Perichoresis 10-God is One- Unity within the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 11- Infinite 12- Transcendent 13- Humility Notice those that are left off the list as they are attributes that involve creation. hope this helps !!! |
|
