"God loves everyone" - false

[eternally-gratefull]

No.
You are getting out of my element ... that is to say I have no training in Greek. I can go from the English to the Greek bible and get greek words and their meaning. That's about it.

I do have the differentiation of the word WORLD according to A.W.Pink who is a scholar.

Aside: Maybe TOO MUCH INFORMATION
Point is, WORLD CAN HAVE VARYING MEANINGS ... one should be slow to draw conclusion.
“Kosmos” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17:24 “God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.”

“Kosmos” is used of the earth:

John 13:1 When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end.” “Depart out of this world” signifies, leave this earth.

Ephesians 1:4 “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” This expression signifies, before the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc.

“Kosmos” is used of the world-system:

John 12:31 “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out”— compare Matthew 4:8 and 1 John 5:19, R. V.

“Kosmos” is used of the whole human race: Romans 3:19, etc.—”Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

“Kosmos” is used of humanity minus believers:

John 15:18 “If the world hates you [and it does], know that it has hated Me before it hated you. [only the unelect hate Christ. Believers do not “hate” Christ, so that “the world” here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ.]

Romans 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.” Here is another passage where “the world” cannot mean “you, me, and everybody,” for believers" will not be “judged” by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.

“Kosmos” is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews:

Romans 11:12 “Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness.” Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, “the world” cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!

“Kosmos” is used of believers only:

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! [Since Jesus does not save all people in the world, that must refer to the elect]

John 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life 16 “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world [“For” refers to believers of verse 15], that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

NIV -but to save the world through him.

ESV -that the world might be saved through him.

NLT -to save the world through him.

NKJV -that the world through Him might be saved.

NLT -to save the world through him.

First occurrence (v.17), is necessarily to be understood that part of the habitable world wherein our Savior conversed;

in the second occurrence (v.17), all men in the world, as some suppose (so also there is a truth in it, for our Savior came not to condemn all men in the world: for, first, condemnation of any was not the prime aim of his coming; secondly, he came to save his own people, and so not to condemn all);

in the third occurrence (v.17), God's elect, or believers living in the world, in their several generations, who were they whom he intended to save, and none else, or he faileth of his purpose, and the endeavor of Christ is insufficient for the accomplishment of that whereunto it is designed

The only thing in this that I see related to the world and gentiles is romans 11. But I can not agree with his argument

1. Riches of the world (kosmos)
2. Riches to the gentiles (ethnos)

He separates the two. meaning they are not equal

as for John 3: 17, I also disagree with the perception that the first use is REQUIRED to be interpreted as the place to which he was sent (I assume you mean isreal?) It is possibible? yes I guess. But it is just as possible that he want sent from the heavenly rhelm to the earth. (all mankind)

the second we agree

and third Again, I disagree, while it MAY be what you say, It it is just possible that he is saying a fact. The world (all mankind) might be saved, Since the possibility of salvation is open to all the world

It is not just based on my belief, It is based in the fact your point, which MAY be valid, are not enough to way my view. Also in the fact that in dictionaries and lexicons. The term KOSMOS from what I have found is NEVER used to denote just gentiles as apposed to jews.

I am open to have my view changed, But I need more than what you are giving..

 

[EleventhHour]

Interesting point you made. I would have to ponder it. Hypostatic union and such ... and it instruction for us, not for himself... hmmm....anyways, MY TURN !!!!!!!

Well that is a good thing... because to believe that at any given moment God is hating 99.9999999% of the planet does not sense when viewed through the lens of Christ Jesus and the life He lived.

 

[Fastfredy0]

ery convenient how you make the meaning fit the dogma so well.

I think you missing my point. I am saying the WORLD is ambiguous; that one should try to avoid basing doctrine on the implicit meaning of verses using words like ALL, WORLD and EVERYONE because often bias will determine meaning.

I admit... WORLD in John 3:16 read by itself could mean EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION ... my bias would give it that meaning if the verse was the only verse in the Bible. When I find other verses that contradict that meaning I have to search for another answer. I believe I have presented verses and reasoning that contradict that meaning.
Plus it is very clear that the use of ALL and WORLD in other verses can have varying meanings as @eternally-gratefull pointed out.

 

[Fastfredy0]

@EleventhHour

Here's all my questions that didn't get answered. Take a shot if you like. Best to reference question number. Lot's of questions as you have been VERY NAUGHTY and not answered them. (Said in 'fun' way)

I have to fix neighbor's plumbing and eat lunch.

Question 1:
Your definition of LOVE ... Take pleasure in is a definition of God's Love:
Does God "take pleasure in" the wicked as much as he does those IN CHRIST ????

If your answer is NO. Would that not be good reason to say "God does not love everyone the same amount"?

Question 2:
Colossians 3:14 Beyond all these things put on and wrap yourselves in [unselfish] love, which is the perfect bond of unity [for everything is bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best
Here is a biblical definition of love (perfect bond of unity). I understand how those "in christ" have a perfect bond of unity. How do you propose unbelievers (son of Satan) have a perfect bond of unity with God which is a definition of love?



Question 3:
How can a Holy God love that which is unholy? (i.e. son of Satan) Does He deny His own essence? Can He love that which He is repulsed by?

Question 4:
Faith cometh by hearing so those that do not hear the gospel have no chance of salvation. Assuming you agree with that statement …

Why does God not ensure the gospel (faith cometh by hearing) is sent to those He loves?


Question 5:
Colossians 3:14 Beyond all these things put on and wrap yourselves in [unselfish] love, which is the perfect bond of unity [for everything is bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best
Here is a biblical definition of love (perfect bond of unity). I understand how those "in Christ" have a perfect bond of unity. How do you propose unbelievers (son of Satan) have a perfect bond of unity with God which is a BIBLICAL definition of love?


Question 6:
What is your explanation for so many verses telling us God hates, loathes, is repulsed by ... those you say He loves? Perhaps you are one of those that says God loves the sinners but not the sin. If so, why doesn't He send the sin to hell and save whatever is left over?


Question 7:
Given:
John 14:21 “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father… 23 If a man loves Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him”
1 John 4:19 We love, because He first loved us.

Since:
1) God only loves the obedient only - verse 21 says “[they] shall be loved by the father” it indicates Christians (the elect) only
2) God only loves those that love Him - verse 21
3) Only those who obey God love God - verse 23 and they love because God loved them first (ver. 1 John 4:19)

We can conclude that some undefined measurement of obedience (love) must be present in all believers to be loved by God who only loves Christians.

…………. What is wrong with the logic of question 7


Question 8:
Can you give examples of biblical person's name(s) we know went to hell (someone nit-picked and said people not in hell yet .. you get what I mean) that God said He loved. Admittedly, no examples do not prove my point but is circumstantial evidence, but is strong evidence for yours.


Question 9:
Give examples of biblical person's name(s) we know went to heaven that God said He hated or loathed or was repulsed by. Admittedly, no examples do not prove my point but is circumstantial evidence, but is strong evidence for yours.



Question 10:
Assuming God loves everyone, one assume God would not favor any group of people and therefore each group would be represented in heaven by relatively proportional numbers. Assuming you agree with this statement … Why do we see such disproportionality. Consider: 1 Corinthians 1:26Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.


Finally …

I almost sure you don’t agree with the following statement. But, if the following statement is true, would you still think GOD LOVES EVERYONE.

Statement: God chosen who is to be saved with no regard to people’s ‘free will’ where free will is the ability to chose to believe God (salvific faith) independent of outside influence.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think you missing my point. I am saying the WORLD is ambiguous; that one should try to avoid basing doctrine on the implicit meaning of verses using words like ALL, WORLD and EVERYONE because often bias will determine meaning.

I admit... WORLD in John 3:16 read by itself could mean EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION ... my bias would give it that meaning if the verse was the only verse in the Bible. When I find other verses that contradict that meaning I have to search for another answer. I believe I have presented verses and reasoning that contradict that meaning.
Plus it is very clear that the use of ALL and WORLD in other verses can have varying meanings as @eternally-gratefull pointed out.

just to point out

You keep saying people interpret based on their bias..

You could be doing that yourself.. Thus to use it as an argument is nonsensical..

 

[DanielT]

This is what man's responsibility is. It does not say that God must do it.

It doesn't say that God must do it, but it does say that God does do it.

Again, in Jesus' own words: "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." - Matthew 5:44-45

Again, that's Jesus drawing the parallel between the way we are to love and the way that God loves.

It is ridiculous to think God prays to God for the sons of Satan.

This also sounds like an argument that Muslim's use. "If Jesus was God why does he pray to God? Is he praying to himself? That's ridiculous!" It's not a good argument when they use it, and it's not a good argument when you use it either. God doesn't have to pray to Himself for His enemies in order to love His enemies. Jesus said that He does love them, and that should be enough.

It is your responsibility to prove your point or disprove mine. Don't ask me to prove your point.

I never asked for you to prove my point. I asked you to prove yours. I asked you, how can you reasonably interpret Matthew 5:44-45 in a way that doesn't conclude that God loves everyone. That's not asking you to prove my point, it's very clearly asking you to prove yours.

Aside: God's love is holy. Therefore, he cannot love that which is the polar opposite of his holiness.

If you're saying He cannot love sin, I wholeheartedly agree. Neither I nor anyone else taking my side of the argument here has either said or implied that God loves sin. God loves people, not their sin.

Habakkuk 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You cannot look favorably on wickedness. To love the wicked would contradict this verse.

It does not in any way contradict this verse. God does not approve evil, nor does He look favorably on the wicked. That does not mean He doesn't love them... loving them means that He desires them to turn from evil and towards Him. There is no contradiction there.

 

[Fastfredy0]

I am open to have my view changed, But I need more than what you are giving..

I hear you. All I am trying to convey, as you also pointed out, is that the word WORLD can have varying meanings depending on context. Also our bias skews our interpretation. Thus, I would be leery of any verse using WORLD, ALL and EVERYONE when determining doctrine. Use explicit verses.

Aside: There are lots of biblical examples showing WORLD and ALL must have different meanings depending on context. There are not a lot of uses of EVERYONE so not as easy to demonstrate varying meaning. EVERYONE is very similar to ALL in usage.
Hey, that's all I got. Just saying there is reason to doubt and go to others verses to see if doctrine aligns.

Aside2: Here is a excerpt from a Christian philosopher demonstration the different understandings of the word ALL

An error occurs when there is confusion about whether we refer to a term in a collective sense, or a distributive sense. A collective sense means all the items are considered together as a whole. In a distributive sense, all the items are considered separately, one at a time. The tricky thing is that the word "all" can be used either way. When "all" is used collectively, it means "all together". When "all" is used distributivitly, it means "each and every one." The difference is really important and can often be distinguished only from context.
.. Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Well that is a good thing... because to believe that at any given moment God is hating 99.9999999% of the planet does not sense when viewed through the lens of Christ Jesus and the life He lived.

You keep saying people interpret based on their bias..

You could be doing that yourself.. Thus to use it as an argument is nonsensical..

Agreed ... I also have bias that determines my opinion.
I don't see how me pointing out our negative cognitive issues (bias) is nonsensical.
Again, I agree that I am bias and I am sure that bias causes me to be incorrect. I also acknowledge I have difficulties putting my bias' aside. We all do. Some more than others (not inferring you).

Aside: Hear on news a month ago about bias ... something like when a person hears something they agree with they are more likely to remember it than when they hear something they disagree with.

 

[EleventhHour]

John 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life 16 “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world [“For” refers to believers of verse 15], that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

If John 3:15 refer to the world as "believers only"... how does this even make logical sense that John goes on and states..... that he came

not to condemn the world (believers).... it is a superfluous addition .. we know obviously believers are not condemned.

Btw ... you appealed to a biased authority A. W. Pink a staunch Calvinist.

 

[EleventhHour]

Agreed ... I also have bias that determines my opinion.
I don't see how me pointing out our negative cognitive issues (bias) is nonsensical.
Again, I agree that I am bias and I am sure that bias causes me to be incorrect. I also acknowledge I have difficulties putting my bias' aside. We all do. Some more than others (not inferring you).

Aside: Hear on news a month ago about bias ... something like when a person hears something they agree with they are more likely to remember it than when they hear something they disagree with.

Well this is very good the you realize you have a bias, we all have them.
I have been shaken out of biases...... we all have.

However, this bias you have impugns the very nature of God... so it is not a small bias, in my view but a very serious one.

 

[Fastfredy0]

My statement

Scripture defines LOVE as Colossians 3:14 Beyond all these things put on and wrap yourselves in [unselfish] love, which is the perfect bond of unity [for everything is bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best for others].
I contend that
Premise 1: those IN CHRIST have a BOND OF UNITY
Premise 2: A BOND OF UNITY is a scriptural definition of LOVE
Premise 3: in those who are sons of satan are not in Christ
Conclusion: Son of Satan are not LOVED by God
Aside: Everyone loved to the degree that God lets the sun and rain fall on the good and evil ones. But one group spends 99.99999999% of their existence heaven and the other in hell

Well that is a good thing... because to believe that at any given moment God is hating 99.9999999% of the planet does not sense when viewed through the lens of Christ Jesus and the life He lived.

You misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear.

I was speaking of two groups. Group 1 in premise 1 is all Christians (those IN CHRIST). Group 2 in premise 3 are all non Christians (sons of Satan).
Then I go on to say that God loves everyone if LOVE is defined as the sun and rain falls on both Group 1 and Group 2.
Then I point out that Group 2 (those destined for Hell) will spend 99.9999999% of their existence in Hell.
Then I point out that it is hard to believe God loves those that for all practical purposes spend their entire existence in Hell.

So, maybe it was my bad sentence phrasing ... but you misrepresent me by stating God hates 99.9999999% of the planet.
Hmmm, you believe in the doctrine of 'age of accountability' .. I would say God only hates 60% of the planet ...

Aside: I read the about 40% of people on the planet didn't read the age of accountability up to the year 1800. I think it down to 3% now.. But then abortions and other pregnancies not coming to term... Anyways ...
Aside2: To repeat, I define God's love as His volition to favor according to the loveliness of the object. Love is a Col. 3:14 'bond of unity'. Two can not walk together unless they are agreed. Thus those IN CHRIST have a perfect bond of unity and are LOVELY and God loves them as He loves Christ. .... Can you say the Sons of Satan are loved by God as He loves Christ? ... I DARE YOU

 

[EleventhHour]

Agreed ... I also have bias that determines my opinion.
I don't see how me pointing out our negative cognitive issues (bias) is nonsensical.
Again, I agree that I am bias and I am sure that bias causes me to be incorrect. I also acknowledge I have difficulties putting my bias' aside. We all do. Some more than others (not inferring you).

Aside: Hear on news a month ago about bias ... something like when a person hears something they agree with they are more likely to remember it than when they hear something they disagree with.

Fyi on Kosmos


The standard lexicons (such as Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, etc.) are unanimous in stating that kosmos (world) as used in John 3:16 refers to "mankind, the human race."

This is the obvious sense of the word in this context.

To state that kosmos in John 3:16 refers to "the world of the elect" is really unnatural and to make the word become something it is not in that context.

John 3:14-15
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

Did God limit the number of Israelite who could look on the pole and be saved?
By saying it refers only to "believers" is to place limitations where there none.

 

[Fastfredy0]

If John 3:15 refer to the world as "believers only"... how does this even make logical sense that John goes on and states..... that he came

not to condemn the world (believers).... it is a superfluous addition .. we know obviously believers are not condemned.

Btw ... you appealed to a biased authority A. W. Pink a staunch Calvinist.

We are all Biased. You love God so anything in the Bible is true to you no matter how difficult a on concept. I have the same bias.
.. I can tell you HATE calvinists ...You said they all go to hell I believe. I can imagine you in heaven and John Calvin tapes you on the shoulder and you say, "What the hell are you do here". (pun intended)

Hey... no more answers from me till you answer my questions ... seems fair

Aside: I did like your point about JESUS OBEYED THE LAW and thus had to love everyone ... I think I have a response, but your turn to answer questions. Seems only fair that you play defense for a while (giggles contentedly to himself)

Time to watch mindless TV, something I can understand (pun intended)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I hear you. All I am trying to convey, as you also pointed out, is that the word WORLD can have varying meanings depending on context. Also our bias skews our interpretation. Thus, I would be leery of any verse using WORLD, ALL and EVERYONE when determining doctrine. Use explicit verses.

Aside: There are lots of biblical examples showing WORLD and ALL must have different meanings depending on context. There are not a lot of uses of EVERYONE so not as easy to demonstrate varying meaning. EVERYONE is very similar to ALL in usage.
Hey, that's all I got. Just saying there is reason to doubt and go to others verses to see if doctrine aligns.

Aside2: Here is a excerpt from a Christian philosopher demonstration the different understandings of the word ALL

An error occurs when there is confusion about whether we refer to a term in a collective sense, or a distributive sense. A collective sense means all the items are considered together as a whole. In a distributive sense, all the items are considered separately, one at a time. The tricky thing is that the word "all" can be used either way. When "all" is used collectively, it means "all together". When "all" is used distributivitly, it means "each and every one." The difference is really important and can often be distinguished only from context.
.. Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

ok.

When I study the word. I try to stay away from philosophy and other things, I do not look for ways to come to a certain belief system, I look at the words. Look at the meanings of words. look at the rest of scripture. and then come to a conclusion of what I think

I am going to be honest, please do not be upset

1. You determination that the world does not mean the whole world. Or the world which is under satans influence Ithe only two possible interpretation in the greek which would fit? and instead found some commentator who said it could also mean gentiles. Which not only has yet to be seen, But is not part of any definition of the word translated "world"
2. You then went to John where the word world was used three times. And tried to change the meanings of each word. Which forgive me, But is based on what you think, not the literal interpretation of the world. As I showed. It does not in anyway show it to be true
3. You use a philospher.

So to me, You are tryign to use all of these things to allow you to interpret it the way you desire to interpret it.. Something you seem to keep on bringing up in almost every post. At least from my perspective, I do not see any other way to explain why you see things which are not really there without really going out on a limb

And it is for this reason. Not my bias. That I can not see it your way.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Agreed ... I also have bias that determines my opinion.
I don't see how me pointing out our negative cognitive issues (bias) is nonsensical.
Again, I agree that I am bias and I am sure that bias causes me to be incorrect. I also acknowledge I have difficulties putting my bias' aside. We all do. Some more than others (not inferring you).

Aside: Hear on news a month ago about bias ... something like when a person hears something they agree with they are more likely to remember it than when they hear something they disagree with.

Now This I can agree with

 

[Fastfredy0]

o to me, You are tryign to use all of these things to allow you to interpret it the way you desire to interpret it.. Something you seem to keep on bringing up in almost every post. At least from my perspective, I do not see any other way to explain why you see things which are not really there without really going out on a limb

And it is for this reason. Not my bias. That I can not see it your way.

Thanks for hearing me out. It was an enjoyable discussion.

 

[Magenta]

No one is answering my questions ... *pout*

Meanwhile, you have ignored every single one of my posts to you

 

[Oncefallen]

I am strongly dispensational, I just see no evidence of the covenant view have not discussed that in along time, it is another heated topic, many have gotten banned over, which is sad

as for tongues, I speak more of God needing to speak to someone in their own language the gospel. not what we see is many churches today,

In heated topics such as dispensationalism vs covenant theology or this topic, typically what gets users banned is not their viewpoint but how they present that viewpoint.

I've posted multiple times over the life of this thread that people need to discuss the topic, not other users, attack the viewpoint not the character of the viewholder. People who can't discuss divisive topics with minimal civilly should just stay out of the conversation.

 

[EleventhHour]

We are all Biased. You love God so anything in the Bible is true to you no matter how difficult a on concept. I have the same bias.
.. I can tell you HATE calvinists ...You said they all go to hell I believe. I can imagine you in heaven and John Calvin tapes you on the shoulder and you say, "What the hell are you do here". (pun intended)

Hey... no more answers from me till you answer my questions ... seems fair

Aside: I did like your point about JESUS OBEYED THE LAW and thus had to love everyone ... I think I have a response, but your turn to answer questions. Seems only fair that you play defense for a while (giggles contentedly to himself)

Time to watch mindless TV, something I can understand (pun intended)

I do not hate Calvinists... I have friends that are in the Reformed church where I live.

I will agree that I am less than enamored with the dogma.

 

[Oncefallen]

In heated topics such as dispensationalism vs covenant theology or this topic, typically what gets users banned is not their viewpoint but how they present that viewpoint.

I've posted multiple times over the life of this thread that people need to discuss the topic, not other users, attack the viewpoint not the character of the viewholder. People who can't discuss divisive topics with minimal civilly should just stay out of the conversation.

Disregard the part of the post in red, I thought that I was posting in "Not By Works" where I have warned numerous times