You didn't answer the question.
Do you believe God loves the unrepentant sinners who are in hell?
Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Do you believe God loves the unrepentant sinners who are in hell?
The belief that God loves unrepentant sinners who are in hell is a controversial topic among Christians. Some argue that God's love is unconditional and that he loves all sinners, while others believe that God's wrath is upon unrepentant sinners and that he hates them. According to some Christian sources
, God loves sinners but hates their sin. However, this does not mean that God loves all sinners without exception. God has enmity with those sinners who have not repented and trusted Christ
. The Bible says that God hates all evildoers
, and sinners are the object of God's wrath and anger
. God's love for sinners is manifested in his desire for them to repent and be saved
. Ultimately, the question of whether God loves unrepentant sinners who are in hell is a matter of theological interpretation and personal belief.
One of the members / posters you've been interacting with throughout this thread. Example: https://christianchat.com/threads/d...en-in-the-book-of-life-or.214168/post-5247404
[my apologies for not seeing your post till just now. This happens a lot, to me, I'm not sure why I miss so many posts, and only notice them when I've gone back through the thread, to read again, somewhat later (perhaps a browser issue?? I dunno)]
Yeah, no problem. And I apologize for not seeing your post, either, till just now.
And like I said in a post to E-G, a few posts back, I don't think it's a problem of the "OF Jesus Christ [genitive]" so much, especially in the one verse where (as I see it) rogerg is joining two parts of two distinct clauses together (improperly) to MAKE IT SAY (to the effect of meaning), "Jesus poured His faith into us SO THAT 'we would BELIEVE'"... The sentence doesn't say nor convey that, though. lol
Don't worry-happens to me as well.
A response to our Calvinist friend
The statement "Hearing and believing the gospel doesn't save anyone" is not consistent with a Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinism emphasizes the doctrine of election, which teaches that God unconditionally chooses who will be saved. According to Calvinism, those who are predestined by God will inevitably come to faith and be saved, and this faith is often understood to be the result of God's sovereign work in the individual's heart. Therefore, in the Calvinist perspective, hearing and believing the gospel are seen as the means through which God brings about the salvation of those whom he has already elected to save.
Shalom
Johann.
God hated Esau because to Esau the "Inheritance/Promise" from Abraham to Isaac was not important to him. Basically, Esau rejected God. So God hates the act of rejecting Him. And what makes it worse with Esau is that Esau knew about God and still rejected his rightful Inheritance/Promise.
But everyone in Hell did not reject God after knowing Him. They rejected God based upon being deceived. Most are deceived by not believing in a literal God, Devil, Hell, Heaven.
Look at Revelation where it speaks about the Mark of the Beast and their "torment and smoke" goes before God for ever and ever. When the Mark is in play, the world through television, radio, evangelists, missionaries have heard about God. And to take the Mark is to literally "reject" God "who most people know about." And these who reject God by taking the Mark they will be noticed by God in their torment and suffering for ever and ever.
I do not believe God hates those in Hell who have been deceived. I do believe God hates those in Hell who chose to "reject" Him after having some idea of knowledge that God is real.
Hard to understand how this got to 30 pages. As much as we want to believe our personal belief equals truth it does not. I find my self really questing why I am replying to this. Well take you said here MerSee "do you believe God loves the unrepentant sinners who are in hell". This alone is for most of us going back to the basics, 101. For God so loved the world? "Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” So to be just, elect, saint one has to as He said be born again.
Then you talk of hell which for many is a slippery slop. Are they (forgive me Father). Well are they just sleeping waiting for judgement day? Or are then in hell burning to be pulled out then judged to be tossed back in? Or are they in hell being tormented by the ones hell was made for? But really this is mute because you say you see yet your sin remains.
"God does not punish anyone who has paid their debt to Him." So based on this you won't leave that cell because you have to pay a debt that is impossible for you or any man to pay. If you/we choose to pay it we are lost forever. See to get in.. which also means our names written in heaven we must surrender all. We must repent. Many see sin as stealing or lying so forth so on but I can stop doing that but I will still be lost. If anyone wants their name written in His book they will bow they will repent and know without Him the could never get in. Here we are back at the start. To be just or elect to have their name in His book you heard His all that pull on your heart and you repented and believed He was who He said it was and will surrender and give Him all the praise all the glory knowing we did nothing.. HE did it all or stay on the out side ones free choice
Let's select "the faithfulness of Christ" for the moment;
Now let's read the verse... but wait[!]... first we must place back into that verse a very vital phrase for its "making sense". (It doesn't make sense the way you had written it without that phrase, yeah, but if one INCLUDES that vital phrase that you'd left out, it DOES straighten out the "sense" of it, and aids our understanding of what it is conveying).
I'll ask you. What "phrase" am I referring to that you've "left out" of verse 22.
Then (once you re-insert the words that also belong in that verse), read the sentence with the quoted red words from your options, the one I suggested we should select for the moment, to read the ENTIRE verse (nothing left out) using that particular suggested option.
faith in Jesus Christ -- Three times in this verse Paul declares that salvation is only through faith in Christ and not by law. The first is general, “a man is not justified”; the second is personal, “we might be justified”; and the third is universal, “no flesh shall be justified.” - MSB
through faith of Christ -- dia pisteos Christou, διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, "The words "the faith of Christ" have been variously understood. One group takes it to refer to our faith in Christ; another group takes it to refer to the gospel thus the objective faith of Christ. On the whole it seems more probable that in this context it refers to the gospel." - Noel Merideth
faith in Jesus Christ. -- Some believe that the reference is to the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”
Lightfoot, however, observes, “Faith is, strictly speaking, only the means, not the source of justification. - PC
διὸ πίστεως Χρ. Ἰης., “by means of faith in Christ Jesus.”
καὶ ἡμεῖς, “even we” with all our privileges, taking up the ἡμεῖς of Gal_2:15.
εἰς Χρ. Ἰης. ἐπιστεύσαμεν. πιστεύω εἰς, though common in St John’s writings, occurs in St Paul’s only here and Rom_10:14, Php_1:29. It has, as it seems, with him the same strong sense as with St John, to cease to lean on oneself and to place one’s entire trust on Christ. Observe the “ingressive” aorist, like ἐβασίλευσε … Γύγης, Gyges became king, Herodot. I. 13 (Gildersleeve, § 239).
ἴνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ. ἐκ is stronger than the preceding διά, and excludes all sources of justification other than faith on Christ.
The omission of Ἰησοῦ may be due only to a wish to avoid repetition, but perhaps to a desire to emphasize the thought that a true Jew finds his justification in Messiah. Cf. Gal_2:4 note on ἐν Χρ. Ἰης.
but by the faith of Jesus Christ; not by that faith, which Christ, as man, had in God, who promised him help, succour, and assistance, and for which he, as man, trusted in him, and exercised faith upon him; but that faith of which he is the object, author, and finisher; and not by that as a cause, for faith has no causal influence on the justification of a sinner; it is not the efficient cause, for it is God that justifies; nor the moving cause, or which induces God to justify any, for that is his own free grace and good will; nor the meritorious or procuring cause, for that is the obedience and bloodshed of Christ; nor is faith the matter of justification; it is not a justifying righteousness; it is a part of sanctification; it is imperfect; as an act it is a man's own, and will not continue for ever in its present form, nature, and use; and is always distinguished from the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, which is perfect, is another's, and will last for ever. Men are not justified by faith, either as an habit, or an act; not by it as an habit or principle, this would be to confound justification and sanctification; nor as an act, for as such it is a man's own, and then justification would be by a man's works, contrary to the Scripture: but faith is to be taken either objectively, as it relates to Christ, the object of it, and his justifying righteousness; or as it is a means of receiving and apprehending Christ's righteousness; the discovery of it is made to faith; that grace discerns the excellency and suitableness of it, approves of it, rejects a man's own, lays hold on this, and rejoices in it:
Gill
J.
Are you a teacher? I appreciate you explaining this so thoroughly in a way that makes sense. It's been a while since I have been in school and have had to use my own brain. lol
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...ristou-debate/#:~:text=Pistis Christou Debate
You will find this interesting.
J.
If by pistis Christou (which in isolation can indeed signify any number of things) the apostle had meant either “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness,” it would have been ridiculously easy for him to make that point clear beyond dispute. Among various possibilities, he could have, for example, indicated—in the same contexts—one or two ways in which Jesus believed and how those acts of faith were relevant to the matter at hand. Or he could have told us—again, in the same contexts—that his message of dikaiosynē(“righteousness, justification”) is true because Christos pistos estin (“Christ is faithful”). What could have been simpler? And considering the theological importance of this issue, one would think that he might have made a special effort to clarify matters.
Instead, if some scholars are to be believed, Paul did not have enough sense to realize that the phrase pistis Christou is ambiguous. And to make matters worse, he unwittingly misled his readers by using the verb pisteuō with Christos as direct object again and again in the very same passages that have the ambiguous phrase! His bungling proved spectacularly successful, for in the course of nearly two millennia, virtually every reader—including ancient scholars for whom Greek was their native language—understood the phrase to mean “faith in Christ” and gave no hint that it might mean something else. (I might add that when Campbell, in a footnote on p. 67 of his article, seeks to undermine the linguistic argument in view here, he shows only that he has not quite understood that argument.)
Although I am not hopeful that this collection of essays will bring a resolution to the impasse, it remains true that there is much to be learned from the volume, and the editors deserve our thanks for bringing it to fruition.
Part of the debate in the link provided.
It makes no difference.
Lets try this, Does the word stand alone?
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith…..
You see here we have the whole concept. That the righteousness of God is given through faith.
The faith of who?
Well let’s finish the verse but again leave one word missing
to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
so this tells us that the righteousness of God is given through faith to all who believe.
But faith in what?
now we can insert the words missing
in Jesus Christ,
Now try to change the words to as you say the faithfullness of christ?
It does not fit.
Wait a sec. I'm just trying to see if we're tracking along the same lines here.
Are you thinking (just checking here) that what I'd meant in my previous post, is that you left "one word missing"...?
Because that's not what I meant.
(Maybe you aren't suggesting that this is what you gathered from my post, but instead are making a distinct point of your own, here, which could be the case; I'm just asking for clarification because it is not readily apparent to me, by your present post, which of these is intended here).
There (in the bold / underline emphasis) is the *phrase* I'm pointing out that you "left out" when quoting that verse in your earlier post.
We'll get to that... but first I think we need to back up a sec and get on the same page about what I was talking about when I said "you left out a phrase" (the phrase "to all and on all who believe" is the phrase you had left out, when quoting that verse. I'm not talking about "what idea" we should understand to insert, like, obviously "believe [IN Jesus Christ, is WHO, duh]"; No, I'm talking about actual words in the text which you had left out when you'd quoted the verse)
[is the following / next part of your present post addressing that point? I honestly can't tell, I'm sorry]
Again (and it's hard to know by reading your post), are you saying that the "MISSING WORDS" *I* had been speaking of, are the words "in Jesus Christ" ?
Because I was zeroing in on a different thing altogether. (Which point I had hoped you would address)
...or are you making an entirely different point, aside from what I was pointing out? I'm just asking, coz like I say, I sincerely can't really tell (and clarification, I feel, would aid in communication).
To be clear (in the event it wasn't, in my previous post), I was referring to actual words in the text that you had "left out" when you quoted that verse (v.22), in your earlier post that I was responding to. These: "unto all and upon all who believe" (that phrase... was missing from your quote of that verse.)
After those words are placed as they are in the text itself (rather than left out), then we can discuss (or not) what makes sense or doesn't make sense. = )
^ your Post #579, for reference: https://christianchat.com/threads/d...en-in-the-book-of-life-or.214168/post-5247858
Do you believe God loves the unrepentant sinners who are in hell? Is your answer: Yes, God loves unrepentant sinners who are in hell, or no, God doesn't love unrepentant sinners who are in hell?
Yeah, I don't play trolling. You have my answer. Unless you have a new question, don't bother asking, it'll be ignored. My response and support of others posts is enough of an answer.
