Does Jesus Love Everyone?

[Arthur]

In thinking about the wolves in sheeps clothing who devour the flock, false prophets who make merchandise of God's people, and Pharisees who go to great lengths to make a convert and then turn him into twice the son of hell that they are, I pause to ask the question.  Does God really love everyone?  

Does God love people who know the truth, turn from it, and then go about harming his people?  Did Jesus die for them?  

Does Jesus love the Pharisees?

Does Jesus love those who crucified him?
 
Does Jesus love Judas?  

Does Jesus love Satan?

Does Jesus love the wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Does Jesus love all the people that will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever?

Should we love people like George Geftakys or Jeff Lehmkuhl?

Arthur

[al Hartman]

In thinking about the wolves in sheeps clothing who devour the flock, false prophets who make merchandise of God's people, and Pharisees who go to great lengths to make a convert and then turn him into twice the son of hell that they are, I pause to ask the question.  Does God really love everyone?  

Does God love people who know the truth, turn from it, and then go about harming his people?  Did Jesus die for them?  

Does Jesus love the Pharisees?

Does Jesus love those who crucified him?
 
Does Jesus love Judas?  

Does Jesus love Satan?

Does Jesus love the wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Does Jesus love all the people that will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever?

Should we love people like George Geftakys or Jeff Lehmkuhl?

Arthur

Very deep waters here my friend. Much deeper than you know. I for one don't think I can swim safely here...
Verne

Arthur,

     The key issue for each of us, the real question regarding your question, is:  Does the answer have any bearing upon my attitude toward the Lord Jesus Christ?

     There is no "wrong" answer to that question, but the answer is important, because my attitude toward my Redeemer determines the steps I will take in following Him.  If I can trust Him implicitly, regardless of my inability to fathom the depths of His mysteries, all well and good.  But if I am stumbled by apparent inconsistencies, it is imperative that I address Him from that place:  Lord, I believe (up to thus-and-so point); help my unbelief, that I may believe ALL that is true of Thee.
     If you find yourself uttering that prayer, brother, the penitent to your left will probably be me...

al

[Arthur]

What no takers?  I'm curious what people believe.  I know everyone has an opinion.  

I asked a young Christian woman this question the other day.  

She said "Yes of course Jesus loves everyone, 'he is not willing that any should persish".  

I asked, "Does he love Satan?  

She replied, "Yes."

I was a bit surprised at that one.  
I asked, "How could it be that Jesus loves Satan, he's pure evil."

She replied, "God is love."

I said, "There is no love without truth.  God can't love evil.   I think God hates Satan and it's not like there's any chance of redemption for him."

She maintained that God is love and doesn't hate.  

I said, "Oh yes he hates. It says in the Bible, 'God hates divorce.'"

She said, "That's divorce, not a person.  The Bible never says that God hates any person."

So I did some digging and I found the following instances where the Bible states that God hates or despises people.

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Psalm 11:5

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Mal 1:3

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9:13

There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them. Psalm 53:5

So I guess God, who is love, can hate after all.

There are many other instances where his people, servants, prophets hate evil people and it seems to be a righteous hatred (e.g. Psalm 139:22, Hos 9:15)

There are concepts to the contrary, for example, Jesus tells us to love our enemies, etc. (Matt 5:43-44, Luke 6:27)  

But also in the New Testament, we see that Jesus will take vengence on his enemies, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

I think this issue ties in with a thread that H started a while back, "For whom did Christ die."  In some ways I agree with him.  Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Christ died for the pharisees, false prophets, wolves, etc.  However the Bible does say in Romans 5 that Christ died for us, who were enemies of God.

So that brings it down to the question, is there a difference in people?  Are we all sinners, no difference between us. Or are there the righteous and the unrighteous, and we've always been destined to be one or the other.

Arthur

[Arthur]

Okay Okay!
I can't have you thinking we are all spiritual woosies here now can I?  

You know, I looked up "woosies" on www.dictionary.com and it's just not there.  Then it dawned on me.  That's wuss'ies, as in fuss, not wuse'ies as in fuse.  Ok, that word I know.  Heh, I knew you weren't a wuss-boy, verne  I think I'm getting woozy. Ah, there I found it.  In looky up "woozy", I found "wussy" which I think is the correct spelling for the word in question.

I do not subscribe to the notion that God loves indiscriminately.

I know some will say that the refusal of some to return God's is no evidence that He does not love them.

My own view is that the love of God is irrisistible:

We love him, because he first loved us.  1 John 4:19

I agree with your position that the God who is love can and does also hate. I don't fully understand it although it does appear to be a necessary and concommitant quality of genuine love.

It is entirely proper, that the disposition I have toward someone who would try to harm one of my little girls by definition be at odds with the affection I have for them.
Can there truly be love without hate?

I don't know if God loves Satan. I doubt it.
Verne

Ah ha, I see were on the same page.  Sounds Calvinistic don't it?  You know, I hate labels like Calvinism, etc.  How about, "I believe what the Bible says."  Call it what you want.  I guess the only problem is that everyone believes a wee bit differently, so people, being the structured folk that we are, need to put things into categories.  Are you of this major branch or that?  Heh, funny, I think people and their opinions are generally uncategorizable, unless each gets their own category, but then what would be the point? Hey how about this.  Are you a Calvinist?  No, I'm an Arthurist.  

[Joe Sperling]

"If any man hate not his mother and his father and his wife and children he cannot be my disciple."

Be careful how you use the word "hate". When it says "God hated Esau" I do not believe that it means he didn't love Esau. I think the above text concerning mother and father gives us the true idea of what the word "hate" means concerning following Christ, and God's attitude towards Esau.

"If any man put their mother or father or wife or children first, they are showing they have left their first love"--I think this is really what is being said. If I'm wrong I'm open for correction.

Thanks,Joe

[al Hartman]

                     O.K. I confess. I wuss wrong!  
                     Verne

                   Verne,

                   Don't worry about it-- people on this BB have
                   said stuff that was a lot wuss!  

                   al

[al Hartman]

Some Food For Thought:

Somebody said there are two wonderful things to behold in life:

A thoroughly wicked man (I'm thinking the same thing you are)

And a thoroughly godly man.

     The source from which I first heard the above was the very man of whom you suggest you are thinking as a thoroughly wicked man.  Ironic, no?

When it comes to our fellow man though I must confess I do have some problems. My Bible tells me to love my enemies. I have trouble with that.
My bible tells me that the basis for regarding my fellow man is that he was made in God's image. I am going to have a whole heap 'o trouble when it comes to Osama and his boys. You get my drift.

     These thoughts raise in my mind the question:  Who is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ?  The eternally damned alone, or the redeemed as well?  
     I believe it is the latter.  With painful regret I must confess I cried out for His death.  I plaited the thorns.  I held the nails.  I swung the hammer.
     It was I he drove from the temple; I who was shamed by His simple, clear explanations which exposed my hypocricy, greed and self-righteousness.
     I cannot say Thank God I'm not as Osama, not as Adolph, not as Ghengis or as the caesars, not as GEORGE.  Man looks horizontally at his fellows and compares himself among them.  God sees vertically, from above:  I, I, crucified the Lord of Glory!!!
     Self-accursed and condemned forever, I heard Him say to the Majesty on High, "Father forgive him because he doesn't know what he is doing."  Greater love has no man than this... He saw me, His enemy, and He laid down His LIFE to make Himself my Friend.  
     Am I greater than my Lord, that I should be so righteous as to not forgive another?  If I, by my life, condemned the only righteous Son of God to death, how can another man's sin possibly be greater than mine?  If there is a man so foolish as to neglect so great salvation, he condemns himself and surely needs no help from me...
     Am I greater than faithful Paul, the apostle who calls himself the chief among sinners?  The work of Christ is all-conclusive.  It is finished.  To it I say Amen and Hallelujah; of it I testify and preach.  But it requires no such endorsement, no validation of mine.  It stands alone.  It is enough.
     Show me the error of my thinking...

There must be a verse somehere...

     This, I suspect, is said entirely tongue-in-cheek.  But I remind that this was the great technique of assembly leadership:
1.  Choose a position that serves your goals.
2.  State the position as law.
3.  Find a verse that supports the position.
4.  Enforce the position by wielding the verse as a club.

     ...Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.  Amen

al

[Arthur]

     These thoughts raise in my mind the question:  Who is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ?  The eternally damned alone, or the redeemed as well?  
     I believe it is the latter.  With painful regret I must confess I cried out for His death.  I plaited the thorns.  I held the nails.  I swung the hammer.

When Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."  Who was the "them" that he was referring to?

Was it:

A.  The Roman soldiers who were crucifying him
B.  The Pharisees and rulers of Israel who were the ones who wanted to see him die and delivered him into the hands of the Romans to do the deed
C.  The people of Israel who called out for his death at the prompting of the rulers
D.  Some combination of A, B or C
E.   Mankind as a whole


Arthur

[Arthur]

Yes, God did. God was the one who planned, oversaw and carried out the whole matter.
Is the meaning of Christ's death dependent upon a person's choice?

Why did Christ die on the cross?  What did he accomplish?  
He paid for our sins, right?  What else?  Just a few things I gleaned:

-We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.
-We who were once afar off are brought near to God by the blood of Christ.
-Christ made peace through the blood of his cross.  
-By the blood of Christ we were justified and saved from wrath through him.  
-By the death of his Son, we are reconciled to God.  
-The church of God was purchased with his own blood.
-Through his blood we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus Christ accomplished all this by his death.  Where in the Bible does it say that any of the things he has done is dependent upon man's choice?  Jesus has done it.  If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved.  But obviously that is not the case.  Therefore the conclusion must be that he did all of the above only for his people.  Those whom he foreknew, predestinated, called, justified and glorified.

Let me state it a bit simpler.  Who's sins did Jesus pay for with his blood in that once for all sacrifice?  Everyone in the whole world?  Well then everyone in whole world has their sins paid for.  So that means God holds nothing against anyone. No one is under his wrath and everyone is going to heaven, right?  Of course not.

Well, so either everyone is going to heaven or Jesus didn't die for everyone.

Just as he called and separated out from the world our father Abraham so too his church.  Just as he separated Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from Esau, Israel from Egypt he purified unto himself a peculiar people.  All of our forefathers in the faith were chosen by God. They did not choose him.  Indeed Jesus said that very thing to his disciples, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."  

What choice is it of an infant to be born?  Does he do any work or make any decisions about the matter?  Does a person then have a say or lend a hand in his spiritual birth?  I think not.  "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Who has the final say, God or man?  Who has the dominant will?

Who originated the plan of salvation?  Did man?  Who carried it out throughout the course of human history?  Did man have control over Jesus and force him to die?  Did man raise him from the dead?  Does man have control over his eternal destiny?


When I was in the assembly I discounted some of the reformed teachings, including election.  I firmly believed that God provided everything for men to be saved, it was only of matter of if they would choose it or not.
Now, the more I think about it, the more election makes sense to me.

Arthur

[moonflower2]

Let me state it a bit simpler.  Who's sins did Jesus pay for with his blood in that once for all sacrifice?  Everyone in the whole world?  Well then everyone in whole world has their sins paid for.  So that means God holds nothing against anyone. No one is under his wrath and everyone is going to heaven, right?  Of course not.

Arthur

Arthur I have had to  learn a hard lesson about the truth you have so simply and clearly stated and let me save you a bit of potential grief. Someone either grasps this truth or they do not. If they don't see it, don't even try my friend. It may be something the Lord has to broker; trust me...
Verne

Sometimes a truth stated very simply with simple logic makes it easier to understand.  

So what we are saying here is that if Jesus' blood covers all sin, but people are still going to be lost, then His blood didn't really do the job, which would be an  impossibility.
And what would follow is that since the unsaved rejected God's spirit, they weren't meant to have it to begin with, since it wouldn't be possible to reject it.    There is something missing here.......

[Oscar]

Arthur,

You said,

"When I was in the assembly I discounted some of the reformed teachings, including election.  I firmly believed that God provided everything for men to be saved, it was only of matter of if they would choose it or not.
Now, the more I think about it, the more election makes sense to me."

FYI. election makes sense to just about every Christian.  I have never met or read anything by a genuine Christian that didn't believe in election.

The question isn't "does God elect and predestine?".

The question in the whole Calvinist/Arminian discussion is, "On what basis does God elect and predestine?"

The Calvinist position requires that God does not act upon His omniscient knowledge, while the other side says he does.

Theologians would call this a discussion about God's independence, or "Aseity".

IMHO, the Calvinist position requires knowledge of God's thoughts to a degree that no one really has.

You also said,

"Jesus Christ accomplished all this by his death.  Where in the Bible does it say that any of the things he has done is dependent upon man's choice?  Jesus has done it.  If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved.  But obviously that is not the case.  Therefore the conclusion must be that he did all of the above only for his people.  Those whom he foreknew, predestinated, called, justified and glorified."

Here, the flaw in your logic is the statement, "If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved."

You have to sneak in the hidden premise, "Everyone for whom Christ died will be saved" to make that work.

But since that is what you are trying to prove, it is invalid.


Arthur, remember what John the Baptist said, "...behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn. 1:29)

Even John Calvin recognized that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.  The extreme Calvinist position that many adopt requires that the verse  say, "...who takes away the sin of the elect, or a few, or anything but "the world".

When a theological position requires a re-write of the Bible, that should serve as red light alert that there are some loose threads in the model.

"For God so loved a few folks, that he gave his only begotton son..."  (John 3:16).

The problem arises when we seek a simple solution to a complex problem.
God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Arthur]

Is not the simplest solution often the best?  In discussing this matter with my friends, they said that this discussion has been going on for centuries and we're not going to solve it in one night.  I understand that and I don't presume that I would know something that the rest of humankind has not discovered these past millenia.  However, I hope that there is an answer. And I wonder at why it would not be as plain and obvious as the message of salvation.  Or is this something that is not for us to know or be able to comprehend? If so, I would be disappointed.  

Tom, one thing that I don't understand about your disproof of what I said is the part about the flaw in my logic.

Here, the flaw in your logic is the statement, "If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved."

You have to sneak in the hidden premise, "Everyone for whom Christ died will be saved" to make that work.

But since that is what you are trying to prove, it is invalid.

The first premise I started with is that Christ has already done all of these things (paid for our sins, turned away God's wrath, reconciled us to God, etc.).  Does not all of these things equal being saved?

I guess I didn't state it clearly enough, but my arguement is as follows.

P:  Every person that Jesus died for is saved.
P:  Not every person in the world is saved.
C: Therefore Jesus did not die for every person in the world.

From what I remember of my symbolic logic class, this is a valid syllogism.  Is it your contention then that the first premise is not true?

There are many verses that state "the world" or "the whole world" or "all".  I've seen an explanation that these places refer not to the world as in every single person, but the world of the Gentiles as opposed to Jews only.  For example, John 3:16 would then read "For God so loved not only the Jews but also the Gentile elect, that he gave his only begotten Son..."  

I can undertand that line of reasoning because a major theme of the New Testament is that God repeatedly gets the point across that the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  ref Luke 2:32 "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel",  Eph 2:11-22 "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...",  John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd",  Acts 26:23, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles", Acts 10, etc.

However, is that how those passages should be translated?  I dunno.  Do you?  It seems to be stretching it quite a bit to make it fit.  I need to look further into it.

Arthur

[moonflower2]

Maybe these "calvinists" believe in 7th day creation of man, too.  

[moonflower2]

What choice is it of an infant to be born?  Does he do any work or make any decisions about the matter?  Does a person then have a say or lend a hand in his spiritual birth?  I think not.  "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Does man have control over his eternal destiny?


Arthur

Does a woman HAVE to marry a man who asks her to marry him? No. She has a choice. She can accept the man's love or she can reject it.

Does a child play a part in his birth? No. That's a result of the seed being RECEIVED.

Looking back, we can say that it was all of God. It was His plan, His love, His forgiveness.

I like the way Al stated it in another thread. Interestingly, it was the same way that my father-in-law said it, and he was a staunch CRC (reformed) believer.

[Oscar]

Is not the simplest solution often the best?  In discussing this matter with my friends, they said that this discussion has been going on for centuries and we're not going to solve it in one night.  I understand that and I don't presume that I would know something that the rest of humankind has not discovered these past millenia.  However, I hope that there is an answer. And I wonder at why it would not be as plain and obvious as the message of salvation.  Or is this something that is not for us to know or be able to comprehend? If so, I would be disappointed.  

Tom, one thing that I don't understand about your disproof of what I said is the part about the flaw in my logic.

Here, the flaw in your logic is the statement, "If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved."

You have to sneak in the hidden premise, "Everyone for whom Christ died will be saved" to make that work.

But since that is what you are trying to prove, it is invalid.

The first premise I started with is that Christ has already done all of these things (paid for our sins, turned away God's wrath, reconciled us to God, etc.).  Does not all of these things equal being saved?

I guess I didn't state it clearly enough, but my arguement is as follows.

P:  Every person that Jesus died for is saved.
P:  Not every person in the world is saved.
C: Therefore Jesus did not die for every person in the world.

From what I remember of my symbolic logic class, this is a valid syllogism.  Is it your contention then that the first premise is not true?

There are many verses that state "the world" or "the whole world" or "all".  I've seen an explanation that these places refer not to the world as in every single person, but the world of the Gentiles as opposed to Jews only.  For example, John 3:16 would then read "For God so loved not only the Jews but also the Gentile elect, that he gave his only begotten Son..."  

I can undertand that line of reasoning because a major theme of the New Testament is that God repeatedly gets the point across that the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  ref Luke 2:32 "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel",  Eph 2:11-22 "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...",  John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd",  Acts 26:23, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles", Acts 10, etc.

However, is that how those passages should be translated?  I dunno.  Do you?  It seems to be stretching it quite a bit to make it fit.  I need to look further into it.

Arthur

Arthur,

When you say, "Is not the simplest answer often the best?"

I can only answer, often it is. (Occam's Razor y'know).

However, one cannot say that the simplest answer is always the best.  Plus, I'm not sure yours is the simplest answer.

One of the problems with this type of Reformed teaching is that they don't figure in the issue of time, or timelessness, as the case may be. We do not fully understand how God percieves time.  Most believe that all times are as present to his omniscience.

In other words...they have God making what they call "Decrees".   They argue about whether he decreed certain things before or after the fall...supralapsarianism versus sublapsarianism.

So...God didn't know who would be elect...then one "day" he suddenly decided to elect a bunch of folks to salvation, and damn the rest.  Supralapsarians think he just did it...sublaparianins think he waited until man fell, then decided.

Where does that leave God's omniscience.  Like He didn't know what he was going to do?  Then he found out what he was going to do?  

So, God doesn't even know what he will do in the future?

Huh?

Regarding your syllogism:

(BTW thanks for trying to think clearly...so many don't)

Your first premise was, "Every person Christ died for is saved."

That is the problem.  Is that true?

It seems to me that this makes Christ's sacrifice like pixie dust. (I am illustrating, not mocking, here)  If a flake of pixie dust falls on you...you can fly.  Peter Pan says so.
So, if Christ's blood atoned for your sins, at least potentially, you are saved.  I'm not so sure.

I don't know that that's how it works at all.  I think that Christ's blood is quite able to atone for every sin ever commited by every human being.  A few "lightweights" like Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus agreed with this.

The Calvinist teaching doesn't flow out of a theory of the efficacy of Christ's atonement.

They subordinate all other considerations to their teaching of unconditional election.

But that's the rub.  What was God thinking when he elected?  How can we know?

Calvinists try to answer this by pointing to God's aseity.  God needs nothing, is independent of everything etc..
So, they reason, therefore he doesn't consider men's actions in his decisions.  Or, so goes the argument.

However, God's omnisicent understanding is internal to himself.  He doesn't need to act on the basis of reasons outside of himself.  He knows all things. Perhaps he does take all he knows into account.

I think the Calvinists are claiming to know more than they are capable of knowing.

The "that makes God dependent on mere man and therefore dishonors him" argument that one frequently hears at this point, is silly.

If God is as sovereignly majestic as they say he is...seems to me he can do it any way he likes.

Regarding verses like John 3:16 and 1:29.  That's the problem Arthur.  If you need to act like a Jehovah's witness to make your system work...seems to me you might just want to rethink your system.

Calvin knew about those arguments.  Even he rejected them.  The Bible says what it says.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux